ashill developments · 1. this report presents the results of an ecological survey carried out on...

Ashill Developments

Forest Labs, Bexley

Protected Species Report

March 2011

Safeguarding your business

environment

General Notes

Project No: 852731

Title: Forest Labs, Bexley

Contracting Authority: Ashill Developments

Issue Date: 2nd

March 2011

Issuing Office: Banbury

Authorised by:

Simon Parker

Project

Manager

Date:

2nd

March 2011

Authorised by:

Sarah Harmer

Project QA Rep

Date:

2nd

March 2011

This report has been prepared by RSK Carter Ecological Limited, with all reasonable

skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside

the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever

nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any

such party relies on the report at their own risk.

BAT SURVEY REPORT

852731 – FOREST LABS

1

RSK CARTER ECOLOGICAL LIMITED

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 2

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3

2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................ 3

2.2 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT ................................................................................ 3

2.3 CURRENT PLANNING STATUS....................................................................... 3

2.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................... 4

3 METHODS........................................................................................................... 5

3.1 DESKTOP STUDY .......................................................................................... 5

3.2 HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR PROTECTED VERTEBRATES ............................. 5

3.2.1 General .................................................................................................... 5

3.3 FIELD SURVEY .............................................................................................. 6

3.3.1 Date(s) and Times .................................................................................... 6

3.3.2 Personnel ................................................................................................. 6

3.3.3 Badger...................................................................................................... 6

3.3.4 Assessment of Current Bat Roost Potential of Buildings ......................... 6

3.3.5 Assessment of Current Bat Roost Potential of Trees ............................... 8

3.3.6 Systematic Inspection for Bats or Evidence of Bats................................. 8

3.3.7 Otter ......................................................................................................... 9

3.3.8 Water Vole ............................................................................................. 10

3.3.9 Nesting Birds.......................................................................................... 11

4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 12

4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 12

4.2 PROTECTED VERTEBRATES ........................................................................ 12

4.2.1 Badger.................................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Bats ........................................................................................................ 12

4.2.3 Otter ....................................................................................................... 14

4.2.4 Water Voles............................................................................................ 14

4.2.5 Nesting Birds.......................................................................................... 14

5 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 15

5.1 CONSTRAINTS ON SURVEY DATA............................................................... 15

5.2 PROTECTED VERTEBRATES ........................................................................ 15

5.2.1 Badgers .................................................................................................. 15

5.2.2 Bats ........................................................................................................ 15

5.2.3 Otters ..................................................................................................... 16

5.2.4 Water Voles............................................................................................ 16

5.2.5 Nesting Birds.......................................................................................... 16

5.3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 17

6 FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 18

7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX 1. BAT ECOLOGY ............................................................................. 20

APPENDIX 2. BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION DETAIL .................................. 21

APPENDIX 3. LEGAL PROTECTION AND PLANNING CONTEXT ............. 23

LEGAL CONTEXT...................................................................................................... 23

NATIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................................. 23

APPENDIX 4. PREVIOUS RSK CARTER ECOLOGICAL REPORT.............. 25

BAT SURVEY REPORT


2


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report presents the results of an ecological survey carried out on 20h January

2011 at Forest Labs, Weir Road, Bexley, South East London.

2. The visit comprised of Badger, Bat, Otter, Water Vole and nesting bird and surveys.

These were carried out in connection with proposed re-development of the site.

3. The site is dominated by hard standing and four distinct buildings with very small

areas of rough grass, bare ground and shrubs.

4. There are no Badger setts, and there was no evidence of Otters or Water Voles on, or

immediately adjacent to the site. No further survey work is required for Badgers,

Otters and Water Voles.

5. There is habitat suitable for nesting birds around one building and evidence of nesting

in previous years was found.

6. Works affecting potential bird nesting sites should be undertaken October – February

(outside of the nesting bird season), or take place under the supervision of a qualified

ecologist.

7. Evidence of bats was not found within any of the buildings. However, one of the four

buildings (Building B4b, Figure 2) does have bat roosting potential as it has holes in

the exterior walls, in which crevice-dwelling bats could roost.

8. To show whether bats are roosting in this building (Building B4b, Figure 2), or to

prove their likely absence from the building, two dusk emergence surveys and a dawn

re-entry survey should be undertaken between May - August 2011, when bats are

active.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


3


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose of this Report

This report presents the results of ecological surveys, carried out on 20th January 2011,

at land just off Weir Road, Old Bexley, South East London (Figures 1 and 2). The

results of these surveys are required to inform a planning application allowing the site

to be redeveloped. The 1.25 ha site comprises buildings formerly used as laboratories

and office space, but which are currently empty and used occasionally for recreational

‘Air-Soft’ games. The survey involved a site walkover and an assessment of habitat

for protected vertebrates. The purpose of the survey was to systematically assess the

ecological value of the site and to determine whether it is likely to support any

protected animal species. The site location is given in Figure 1 and an aerial

photograph showing the site layout is provided in Figure 2. All figures are given in

Section 6.

2.2 Ecological Context

The site is bounded to the North and West by Bourne Road and to the South by

Bexley High Street, which are both relatively busy ‘A’ roads. The landscape to the

East is dominated by St Mary’s Recreational Ground and the River Cray. North of

Bourne Road the landscape is largely residential and commercial, whereas the

landscape to the south is comprised of sports fields, agricultural and common land.

Foots Cray Meadows Local Nature Reserve is less than 2km to the South West and

there are also two areas of Ancient and Semi Natural Woodland within 2km of the site

(Bexley Wood and Joydens Wood). The area as a whole is designated Green Belt and

an area of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.

2.3 Current Planning Status

A planning application to redevelop the whole site for residential purposes is due for

submission in spring 2011.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


4


2.4 Structure of this Report

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Section 3 describes the survey and assessment methods;

• Section 4 presents the survey results;

• Section 5 evaluates the results and provides recommendations;

• Section 6 presents the figures; and

• Section 7.contains the references.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


5


3 METHODS

3.1 Desktop Study

A brief search of the National Biodiversity Network website

(http://www.searchnbn.net/) of the 10 km square containing the site (TQ 47) was

carried out. Following the recommendations set out in our initial scoping survey (see

Appendix 4) we searched for records of Badger (Meles meles), bats, Great Crested

Newt (Triturus cristatus), reptiles, Water Vole (Arvicola amphibious), and Otter

(Lutra lutra).

Local Records Centres or Bat Groups have not been approached for records in relation

to this site. Should the site require an application for a Natural England European

Protected Species bat licence in the future, a thorough records search should be carried

out covering a 2 km radius from the centre of the site.

3.2 Habitat Assessment for Protected Vertebrates

3.2.1 General

The habitat was initially assessed for its suitability for protected vertebrates in January

2010. Recognisable areas of habitat suitable for protected species were identified and

where necessary further survey was recommended. This initial report is included as

Appendix 4

Taking into consideration the geographical region and the habitat types, further

surveys were recommended for:

• Badgers, both on the site and in suitable adjacent areas;

• bats in the buildings and trees;

• Otters along the adjacent River Cray;

• Water Voles; and

• nesting birds.

Great Crested Newt and common species of reptile were considered in the initial

report but suitable areas are small and isolated so further surveys at this point were

deemed unnecessary.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


6


3.3 Field Survey

3.3.1 Date(s) and Times

The surveys were carried out on 20 January 2011 during the daytime (approximately 8

hours survey time). The weather was cool and calm, with light showers towards the

end of the survey. These are suitable conditions for these types of survey.

3.3.2 Personnel

The surveys were carried out by Hannah Bilston and Simon Parker of RSK Carter

Ecological Limited.

Hannah Bilston is a Senior Consultant at RSK Carter Ecological Limited and is an

Associate member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(IEEM). Hannah holds a Natural England licence allowing the disturbance of bats for

the purposes of survey in all counties of England (licence number 20100101).

Simon Parker is a consultant at RSK Carter Ecological Limited and is Full member of

the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Simon has four years

experience of protected species surveys.

3.3.3 Badger

An assessment was carried out to identify areas that might be used by Badger (Meles

meles) for commuting, foraging and sett-building within 30 m of all areas potentially

affected by works (where access was possible). The area was systematically searched

for signs of Badger including setts, foraging signs, paths (runs) and latrines.

3.3.4 Assessment of Current Bat Roost Potential of Buildings

The buildings were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats using

binoculars; a 500, 000 candle power torch; ladders; and an endoscope where

necessary.

Bats are crevice dwelling mammals and therefore it is often difficult to thoroughly

inspect buildings for bats and evidence of bats without a destructive search, which is

not generally practical or acceptable. An example of this would be where bats roost

between the roofing felt and tiles. These areas cannot be inspected, but a surveyor

would know that bats might roost here because there are places where bats could gain

entry.

The buildings were assessed for their bat roost potential according to the following

factors that influence the likelihood of bat roosting.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


7


• Surrounding habitat: whether there are potential flight-lines and bat foraging areas

nearby.

• Construction detail: the type and construction of architectural features such as

attics, barge boards, soffit boxes, lead flashing, cavity walls and hanging tiles that

could be used by roosting bats. Some construction details and materials are more

favourable to bat occupation than others.

• Building condition: whether the building has no roof or has a sound roof without

any potential bat-access points.

• Internal conditions: bats favour sheltered locations with a stable temperature

regime, protection from the elements and little wind/light/rain penetration.

• Potential bat-access points: whether there is flight and crawl access.

• Potential roosting locations: descriptions of all bat-accessible voids, cracks and

crevices.

Descriptions of the buildings were recorded on survey sheets, and digital photographs

of every building were taken as a record. The buildings were categorised into the

standard RSK Carter Ecological Limited scheme as follows:

Category 3 - Buildings or structures with numerous or extensive locations that are

suitable for roosting. Generally they have sheltered roosting places, with a stable

temperature regime, low light levels and suitable bat-access points. They could be

suitable for maternity roosts or hibernation sites.

Category 2 - Buildings or structures with few or individual, small-sized areas that are

suitable for roosting. They could be used by small numbers of bats for roosting, and

may be suitable for a maternity roost or a hibernation roost.

Category 1 - Buildings or structures that have limited (i.e. few, small or suboptimal)

potential roosting locations, are subject to wide temperature regimes, higher light

levels and/or restricted bat-access points. They might be used as occasional, transient

or night roosts, by small numbers or individual bats, but are unsuitable for larger

colonies.

Some information on bat ecology, legal protection and planning legislation relating to

bats is included in Appendices 1 and 3.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


8


3.3.5 Assessment of Current Bat Roost Potential of Trees

The two trees within the site boundary were inspected from ground level to assess

their potential to support roosting bats. Inspections of trees from ground-level involve

viewing each tree from all angles using binoculars. Any features that could have

potential for roosting bats are identified (e.g. woodpecker holes, rot cavities, splits,

cracks, flaking bark and thick-stemmed or matted climbing plants). For each feature,

the following information is recorded: feature description; height above ground level;

distance from the trunk; orientation relative to the trunk; category of bat roost

potential (BRP1-3).

Category 3 – (BRP3) Features that appear to be suitable for large maternity colonies

along with roosts of lower conservation status. Any features that appear to be

physically large enough to support high numbers of bats (i.e. 20+ individuals); provide

internal darkness; provide shelter from the wind and rain; are higher than 2 m above

ground level; have an entrance point free from clutter and are possibly, though not

exclusively, heated by the sun.

Category 2 – (BRP2) Features that appear to be suitable for small maternity colonies

along with roosts of lower conservation status. Any features that appear to be

physically large enough to support smaller numbers of bats (i.e. 5-20 individuals);

provide internal darkness; provide shelter from the wind and rain; are higher than 2 m

above ground level; have an entrance point free from clutter and are possibly, though

not exclusively, heated by the sun.

Category 1 – (BRP1) Features that appear to be unsuitable for maternity colonies, but

that could be used for mating, occasional roosting, night roosting or hibernation. Any

features that are only physically large enough to support individual bats or low

numbers of bats (<5 individuals) OR are too low to the ground (<2 m) to provide

protection for a maternity colony.

3.3.6 Systematic Inspection for Bats or Evidence of Bats

The equipment used included 500, 000 candle power torches, smaller torches, small

mirrors, an endoscope, and ladders for access. Where access was not possible

binoculars were employed to view higher areas.

Visual, systematic examinations were made for bats and evidence of bats, both

internally and externally, of the following:

• roof slopes and the ridge;

• wall, window and door surfaces;

• window and door frames;

• wall bases;

• wall ledges and wall tops;

BAT SURVEY REPORT


9


• roof beams;

• cracks, crevices and sheltered voids including joints;

• the floors and stored items; and

• external features such as soffits, barge boards and lead flashing.

Evidence of roosting bats includes droppings, urine stains, staining from fur-oils,

scratch marks, wear marks, feeding remains, dead bats, odour, squeaking and

chattering, and in some cases the absence of cobwebs.

Bat droppings can prove beyond doubt that bats use a building and can help to identify

roosting locations because piles often accumulate beneath roosting sites or entrance

points. The location, size, shape, texture and colour of the droppings can be used to

aid species identification. All droppings found were compared to a reference

collection of droppings from known species. The number and condition (age) of

droppings can indicate the size of the roost and when it was last used.

Urine stains, staining from fur-oils, scratch marks and wear marks are sometimes

found underneath or around the entrances to roosting sites. This evidence is often

found in conjunction with other evidence such as droppings.

Feeding remains such as moth wings chewed in a characteristic fashion can indicate

entry by bats into a building during the night to land and feed on large, cumbersome

prey that cannot be eaten in flight. Such remains are often found in association with

bat droppings and are often characteristic of certain species.

Characteristic odour and squeaks or chattering from individual bats can often alert a

surveyor to the presence of bats.

The absence of cobwebs from a hole or roof apex which is otherwise covered in

cobwebs can help to locate entrance points or roosting places for bats. This evidence

is often found in conjunction with other evidence such as droppings.

3.3.7 Otter

The River Cray and its adjacent habitat were assessed on their potential to support

Otters. This assessment looked at features of the watercourse such as water depth,

water quality, vegetation and cover.

Survey then comprised a detailed search for signs of Otters including spraint

(droppings), footprints, slides, paths, feeding evidence, holts (underground resting

places) or couches (temporary resting places). This survey was carried out for 100

metres either side of the site boundary as shown in Figure 3.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


10


3.3.8 Water Vole

Habitat Assessment

Habitat was assessed for Water Voles according to subjective criteria, which were

then used to categorize habitat according to suitability for the species. The following

habitat factors are taken into consideration:

• water quality;

• water-level regime;

• channel dimensions;

• bank type and material;

• vegetation for cover and food sources;

• shading;

• predation and competition; and

• habitat management.

Classification of habitat suitability was made as follows:

• Excellent – ideal or optimal habitat with good cover, food sources and other

elements that would allow a population of Water Voles to thrive throughout the

year.

• Suitable – habitat that has all the elements required for Water Voles certainly in

the summer, and probably through most winters.

• Marginal – habitat that has some of the habitat features that are suitable for Water

Vole, but with some constraints so that suitability throughout the year is not

certain.

• Unsuitable – habitat lacking one or more crucial element for use by Water Voles.

This category does not necessarily preclude the habitat being used by commuting

Water Voles, but it would not be able to support a resident population.

Detailed Search

Survey for evidence of Water Vole activity followed standard methods adapted from

Strachan (1998). All of the suitable habitat – in this case 100 meters up and

downstream on the River Cray (see Figure 3) were systematically and thoroughly

searched for signs of the species. This involved an intensive search of the bankside

and water-edge habitat, searching for Water Vole field signs including:

• burrows;

• feeding platforms and evidence of feeding;

• food remains;

• latrines; and

• footprints.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


11


3.3.9 Nesting Birds

Habitat suitable for nesting birds was identified, and the site was searched for

evidence of old bird nests.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


12


4 RESULTS

4.1 Site Description

The site is dominated by hard standing and buildings, with very small areas of rough

grassland and bare earth. There are four separate buildings which were in use as an

office, laboratory and living space until 2009 and are currently empty and used

occasionally for ‘Air-Soft’ games. The River Cray runs alongside the Eastern edge of

the site where it forms the site boundary. Here it is a shallow, fast moving stream

approximately 4 m wide and between 10 and 30 cm deep. The bed of the stream is

made up of rubble, gravel and mud and there are two weirs within the approximate

250 m that were surveyed. The banks are relatively steep (between 45 º and 90 º) and

are vegetated with a variety of plant and tree species, including Common Ivy (Hedera

helix) and Pendulous Sedge (Carex pendula)

4.2 Protected Vertebrates

4.2.1 Badger

Records of Badger exist within the 10 km grid square TQ 47 but there was no

evidence of Badger activity on the site. Areas of suitable habitat are small and limited

in number.

4.2.2 Bats

There are records of: Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); Natterer’s Bat

(Myotis nattereri); Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii); Noctule Bat (Nyctalus

noctula); Barbastelle Bat (Barbastella barbastellus); and Brown Long-eared Bat

(Plecotus auritus) in the 10 km grid square (TQ47), according to the National

Biodiversity Network website.

The site contains only two trees and does not provide suitable foraging habitat for

bats. The River Cray, which lies adjacent to the southern site boundary, is lined with

trees and scrub and provides a suitable corridor in which bats could forage and

commute along. The playing field to the north of the site is surrounded by hedgerows

which could also provide suitable commuting routes for bats. The two woodlands

located within 1.5 km of the site could provide suitable foraging habitat for bats.

The buildings on site offer some limited potential for roosting bats and Appendix 2

provides information regarding the construction detail of each building.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


13


Potential bat entrance points, potential bat roosting places and a category of bat

roosting potential are detailed in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Details of bat roost potential in buildings

Building Plate

Number

(Section

6)

Potential bat entrance points Potential bat roosting places Category

of bat

roost

potential

B1 Cottage 1 Very small gap at the gable apex. In the cluttered loft void; no

evidence of bats observed.

Under lead flashing.

Under tiles.

1

B2

Substation

2 Through the open door. No suitable roosting crevices. 0

B3 Office

block

3 and 4 Through broken windows. No suitable roosting crevices. 0

B4a Tram

workshop

5 Cracks in the brick work of two

adjoining buildings.

In the cracks of the adjoining

building. The cracks are not

very deep and so do not provide

optimal roosting conditions.

1

B4b

Laboratories/

warehouse/

office block

6 and 7 Thin holes in the brick work which

may lead into the cavity walls.

Spaces between the brick work

and in the cavity walls.

Limited suitable roosting

crevices in internal walls.

2

B4c Office

block

8 No suitable roosting locations. Highly sub-optimal potential

roosting crevices in internal

walls.

1

No bats or evidence of bats was observed at the time of the initial inspection.

The categories of bat roosting potential of the two trees on site are detailed in Table 2,

below.

Table 2. Details of bat roost potential in trees

Tree Potential bat

entrance points

Potential bat roosting places Category of bat

roost potential

Silver Birch (Betula

pendula)

Several small

holes on South

side of trunk

None. The holes are open and

exposed to the elements

0

Common lime (Tilia x

europea)

None None. The tree is partially clad

with ivy however the ivy stems

are too thin to provide suitable

0

BAT SURVEY REPORT


14


roosting habitat for bats.

4.2.3 Otter

No records of Otter exist within the 10 km grid square TQ 47 and no evidence of

Otters was discovered on the River Cray. The river offers areas of suitable habitat for

foraging and for resting, but no areas suitable for holts were discovered.

4.2.4 Water Voles

Records of Water Vole exist within the 10 km grid square TQ 47 and the river can be

classed as Suitable with some Marginal areas. However, no evidence of Water Vole

activity was discovered. The river has steep, partly shaded banks good for burrowing

into and vegetation suitable for feeding on (See Plates 9 and 10, Section 6). However,

the river is fast flowing with very few areas of slower moving water that would

usually be associated with ideal Water Vole habitat.

4.2.5 Nesting Birds

The dense ivy covering the bungalow and rear garden walls are suitable habitat for

nesting birds, along with a single small Common Lime (Tilia x europea). One old nest

was found amongst ivy growing around the bungalow.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


15


5 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Constraints on Survey Data

The railway embankment to the south-east of the site could not be accessed due to it

being on railway property, and therefore a close inspection was not possible. However

binoculars were used to view the area from the Forest Labs site side and no signs of

Badger were apparent.

The loft space in the tram workshop (Building B4a) could not be accessed as the

access hatch was too high. The exterior of the roof of Building B4a was inspected

with binoculars, where possible, and no potential roosting locations were noted.

January is not a suitable time to determine what birds may be nesting on the site as the

breeding bird season typically lasts from March-September. However there are limited

areas of suitable habitat and work can be timed to avoid months when birds are likely

to be nesting.

This data is relevant for a maximum of 12 months. Bats and other protected species

frequently move around and adopt new roosting sites and therefore if more than one

year elapses prior to commencement of the development it may be advisable to

conduct further survey work to ensure up-to-date information.

5.2 Protected Vertebrates

5.2.1 Badgers

While records of Badgers exist within 10 km of the site, no evidence was discovered

to suggest that Badgers use the site or any areas within 30m of the site boundary. In

addition, areas of suitable habitat are very limited within the survey area. Therefore,

no impacts upon Badgers are predicted to arise due to redevelopment of the site.

5.2.2 Bats

No evidence of roosting bats was observed within any of the four buildings or two

trees inspected on the site. The site, and in particular buildings B4a-c are subject to

high levels of regular disturbance from the ‘Air-soft’ games which take place several

evenings a week. This disturbance could mean that bats are less likely to use them;

however Building B4b does has some limited potential to support roosting bats due to

the presence of holes in the exterior walls.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


16


Although roosting potential appears to be low it is recommended that emergence

surveys are carried out prior to demolition. In order to determine whether bats are

present in the building surveys should consist of two dusk emergence surveys and one

dawn re-entry survey to be undertaken between May – August 2011.

If bats are found to be roosting within the building an EPS licence from Natural

England would be required prior to works commencing. The licence would permit

activities that may otherwise be offences under The Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010, such as destruction of roost sites.

Natural England takes 30 working days to process licence applications following

receipt of all the relevant documentation. This includes a Local Planning Authority

consultation document, Reasoned Statement of Application and Method Statement in

two sections: Background and Supporting Information and Delivery Information. The

latter includes a mitigation strategy to eliminate or reduce impacts on bats.

5.2.3 Otters

No records of Otters exist within 10 km of the site and no evidence was discovered

during our survey. In addition, the site is already subject to relatively high levels of

disturbance from roads, the railway and recreation. Therefore no impacts upon Otters

are predicted to arise due to the redevelopment of the site.

5.2.4 Water Voles

Although records of Water Vole exist within 10 km of the site, no evidence to denote

their presence was discovered during the survey. Areas of suitable habitat along the

river were thoroughly searched and, had Water Voles been using the site, evidence of

Water Vole activity would have been found. We therefore we predict that the

proposed development will have no impacts upon Water Voles.

5.2.5 Nesting Birds

The ivy on the bungalow could be used again by nesting birds and should only be

cleared between October and February or under supervision of a suitably qualified

ecologist. If any bird nests were found they would have to be left undisturbed until

the young leave the nest

BAT SURVEY REPORT


17


5.3 Conclusions

• No evidence of Badgers, Otters or Water Voles was found on or adjacent to the

site.

• Therefore no further work is required regarding any of these species

• Building B4b has potential for use by bats, and it is recommended that two

emergence and one dawn survey be carried out.

• The site is likely to be used by nesting birds and further survey may be required

depending on when work will take place.

BAT SURVEY REPORT


18


6 FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Building Plan

Figure 3: Otter and Water Vole Survey Map

Figure 4: Plates 1-4



Figure 1 Project Title: Forest Labs, Bexley Figure Title: Site Location Plan

Key:

Contract Number: 852731

FILE

NA

ME

:T:

\Pro

ject

s\P

roje

cts

8527

21-8

5274

0\85

2731

-For

estL

abs

Bex

ley

Furth

erS

urve

ys\0

4D

ata

and

Figu

res\

Figu

res\

Fina

lFig

ures

Site location


Plate 1. B1 - Cottage

Plate 2. B2 - Substation

Plate 3. B3 – Office block, north west elevation

Plate 4. B3 – Office block, south east elevation

Plates 1-4 Project Title: Forest Labs, Bexley

Plate 1.

Plate 2.

Plate 3.

Plate 4.

Plate 5.

Plate 6.

Plate 7.

Plate 8.


Plate 5. B4a – Tram workshop

Plate 6. B4b – Workshop/laboratory/office block

Plate 7. B4b – Internal view

Plate 8. B4c – Office block

Plates 5- 8 Project Title: Forest Labs, Bexley

Figure 6 Plates 9 & 10 Project Title: Forest Labs, Bexley

Plate 9: View of River

Cray facing North. Showing bank structure and vegetation

Plate 10: View of River

Cray facing South Showing bank structure and vegetation


10

9

BAT SURVEY REPORT


19


7 REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat

Conservation Trust, London.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity

and Geological Conservation. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London

Strachan, R. (1998) Water Vole Conservation Handbook. English Nature, the

Environment Agency & the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford

BAT SURVEY REPORT


20


APPENDIX 1. BAT ECOLOGY

Bats use different roosting sites throughout the year according to their life cycle

requirements.

Hibernation during the winter months requires roosting sites that are cool and humid.

As conditions improve through the spring, bats become increasingly active and tend to

use transitional roosting sites. During the summer months, females give birth in

maternity roosts. Maternity roosts tend to be warm and temperature-stable, which aids

rapid development of the young, which are weaned in late summer. In the autumn,

adult bats congregate in mating roosts and also use transitional roosting sites. Autumn

is the time when both adults and juveniles have to build up fat reserves in preparation

for hibernation through the winter months.

Bats also use roosts during the night as feeding perches. Species that catch large prey

items such as moths (e.g. Plecotus auritus, Brown Long-eared bat) often enter

buildings to hang up and eat the prey before emerging again to forage. Such feeding

perches tend to be obvious from scatterings of bat droppings with moth wings, which

the bats discard.

Bats are at their most vulnerable during the summer in their maternity roosts, when

disturbance can jeopardise their breeding success. Bats give birth to only one pup per

year and young do not breed until the second or third year after birth. This means that

if maternity colonies are disturbed there can be serious implications for the

conservation status of populations.

Bats are also vulnerable during the winter hibernation period, when disturbance can

reduce the chance of survival through the winter at a time when food is in short

supply.

ECOLOGY SURVEY

852731 – FOREST LABS BEXLEY

21


APPENDIX 2. BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION DETAIL

Building Plate

No.

No. of

storeys

Roof

type

Roof

cladding

Roof

lining

Wall

type

External features (relative to

bat roost potential)

Internal features

(relative to bat

roost potential)

Condition

of

building

Internal

environmental

conditions

B1 Cottage 1 1 Pitched Tiled Felt Brick Gap where barge board had

warped, no evidence of bats.

Cluttered loft void Fair Ground floor used

for storage.

Warm loft void

B2

Substation

2 1 Flat Concrete Unknown Brick No features suitable for bat

roosting.

No features suitable

for bat roosting.

Fair Building redundant.

Small and cluttered

rooms

B3 Office

block

3 and 4 2 Flat Concrete Unknown Brick No features suitable for bat

roosting.


for bat roosting.

Fair Building redundant.

B4a Tram

workshop

5 1 Flat,

sloping

and

pitched

Concrete

and tiled

Unknown Brick Cracks in the brick work where

buildings have been joined; no

evidence of bats


for bat roosting.

Fair Building use for

pellet gun shooting

games and so very

noisy and subject to

regular disturbance

by people.

B4b

Laboratories/

workshop/

6 and 7 3 Flat Concrete Unknown Brick Regularly spaced thin holes in

the brick work of the building,

spanning all three storeys. Three

Limited suitable

roosting crevices in

internal walls.

Fair See above.

ECOLOGY SURVEY


22


Building Plate

No.

No. of

storeys

Roof

type

Roof

cladding

Roof

lining

Wall

type

External features (relative to

bat roost potential)

Internal features

(relative to bat

roost potential)

Condition

of

building

Internal

environmental

conditions

office block of the holes were inspected and

some of the holes within the

external walls may provide

access into the cavity wall.

B4c Office

block

8 3 Flat Concrete Unknown Brick No suitable roosting crevices. Limited suitable

roosting crevices in

internal walls.

Fair See above.

ECOLOGY SURVEY


23


APPENDIX 3. LEGAL PROTECTION AND PLANNING CONTEXT

Legal Context

All species of British bat are protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) extended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation

makes it an offence to:

• intentionally kill, injure or take a bat;

• possess or control a bat;

• intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a bat roost; and

• intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst is occupies a bat roost.

Bats are also European Protected Species listed on The Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010. This legislation makes it an offence to:

• deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;

• deliberately disturb a bat, including in particular any disturbance which is likely

(a) to impair their ability - (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or

nurture their young; or (ii) hibernate or migrate, where relevant; or (b) to affect

significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they

belong.

• damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat; and

• possess, control, transport, sell, exchange a bat, or offer a bat for sale or exchange.

All bat roosting sites receive legal protection even when bats are not present.

National Planning Context

Planning Policy Statement 9 (or PPS9 - ODPM 2005) states that ‘the re-use of

previously developed land for new development makes a major contribution to

sustainable development’, but that: ‘where such sites have significant

biodiversity...interest...local planning authorities, together with developers, should

aim to retain this interest or incorporate it into any development’.

The key principles outlined in PPS9 are that sound and up-to-date evidence should be

available with regards the biodiversity interests of a site; impacts should ideally be

avoided by careful design; but where this is not possible, mitigation or compensation

measure should be implemented to minimise impacts (ODPM, 2005).

PPS9 recognises that many wildlife species receive statutory protection but that other

species have been identified as being of ‘principal importance for the conservation of

biodiversity in England’. The document states that ‘planning authorities should

ECOLOGY SURVEY


24


ensure that these species are protected from the adverse effects of development, where

appropriate, by using planning conditions or obligations’. These UK Biodiversity

Action Plan (UK BAP) species include Noctule, Brown Long-eared Bat, Rhinolophus

ferrumequinum (Greater Horseshoe Bat), Rhinolophus hipposideros (Lesser

Horseshoe Bat), Myotis bechsteinii (Bechstein’s Bat), Barbastellus barbastella

(Barbastelle) and Myotis myotis (Greater Mouse-eared Bat).

In addition to the above, Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities Act (2006) imposes a new duty on all public authorities to have regard

for biodiversity.

ECOLOGY SURVEY


25


APPENDIX 4. PREVIOUS RSK CARTER ECOLOGICAL REPORT

of 5

RSK Carter Ecological Ltd Edmunds House

40 The Green

South Bar

Banbury

Oxfordshire

OX16 9AE

United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)1295 672970

Fax: +44 (0)1295 672975

www.rskcarterecological.co.uk

RSK Carter Ecological Ltd

Registered office

Spring Lodge • 172 Chester Road • Helsby • Cheshire • WA6 0AR • UK

Registered in England No. 6138360

www.rskcarterecological.co.uk

Tracy Puttock

Ashill Developments

Hill Place House

55a High Street

Wimbledon Village

London

SW19 5BA

20.01.2010

Our Ref: 852181 – Forest Labs, Bexley – Initial Site Visit – Rev 1

Dear Tracy,

We are writing to report the key findings of our ecological survey at the Forest Labs site in Bexley,

undertaken on Wednesday 20th January 2010. The visit entailed a thorough and systematic walkover

survey of the entire site; no areas off-site were accessed. The aim was to assess the potential of the

site to support protected species of wildlife; to assess the value of the habitats; and to identify any

invasive plant species.

A brief search of the National Biodiversity Network provided records of Water Vole (Arvicola

terrestris); Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius); Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus); Badger

(Meles meles) and several species of bats and common reptiles in the 10 km grid squares surrounding

the site (TQ47 and TQ57).

A brief search of the Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside revealed that there

are no Local or National Nature Reserves, Special Areas of Conservation or Sites of Special

Scientific Interest on or bordering the site. However the site is in close proximity to an Area of

Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.

Survey Results

Plants

In general, the site does not support any habitats or vegetation types that are important in a legal

context. It is unlikely that further botanical surveys would identify any rare or otherwise notable

species.

of 5

Access was available to all areas, and no non-native invasive plant species, e.g. Fallopia japonica

(Japanese Knotweed), were recorded. Although the survey was undertaken outside of the ideal

season for identifying these species it is likely that, if any were present, they would have been

identified as they have persistent above-ground parts.

Protected Animals

The buildings on site have been empty since April 2009. They vary from single storey to three

storeys; most have flat roofs but there are some with sloping roofs (clad in asbestos-type sheets) or

pitched roofs (clad in tiles). Of the three pitched roofs, only the bungalow to the west of the site has

an attic space, which was accessed and checked for evidence of bats during the survey. None was

found. The remaining two pitched roofs (to the east of the site) do not contain attic spaces; the

interiors of the buildings are open up into the roofs, which have skylights. Despite the lack of void

spaces in attics there are many places where bats may be able to roost. Potential bat access points

include broken or open windows and doors; gaps under tiles; holes in the brickwork; gaps behind

render; and gaps where soffits or fascias meet walls. Bats could potentially roost inside the buildings

or in cavities or crevices in the walls or roofs. Further bat surveys are necessary to establish the

presence or likely absence of bats from these buildings. Should further surveys identify that the

buildings are being used for bats; appropriate mitigation could be easily accommodated on site and

would be dependent on the number/species of bat present. Mitigation could range from the erection of

nest boxes on available trees to the incorporation of purpose-built roosts within the new properties.

Most of the trees around the site are relatively young or occur just outside the site boundary. The

single exception is a Betula pendula (Silver Birch) towards the east of the site, which has some small

holes that may be used by single bats. It would be appropriate to inspect the single tree on site for

bats during the building inspection survey for bats. Some of the trees just outside the boundary (to

the west near the bungalow and to the south and east along the railway and river respectively) also

have the potential to support bats behind the thick ivy. With respect to the trees off-site (assuming

none of them will be felled) it may be necessary to consider the likelihood for disturbance if these

trees are used by roosting bats. Ambient noise levels are already relatively high (due to the railway

and other local human activities) but sensitive lighting may need to be considered.

The railway embankment (demarcating the southern boundary of the site) and the River Cray (to the

east of the site) provide potentially important commuting and foraging habitat for bats. As this

habitat will remain unaffected by development (and therefore habitat connectivity will be maintained)

it may be necessary only to consider the likelihood of disturbance to bats in flight. Again, this is

most likely to include sensitive lighting.

of 5

The River Cray provides suitable habitat for Otter (Lutra lutra) and Water Vole. Bearing in mind the

close proximity of the site to the river it may be necessary to carry out surveys for these species but it

may be possible to completely avoid any impacts (assuming these species are present) by providing a

buffer zone between the development and the river. The main aim of the buffer is to prevent

construction activities, which could directly impact upon species present or result in habitat loss,

proceeding close to the river. However, if works (such as landscaping) are required close to the river

then it is also advisable to undertake surveys to determine if the species are present. If the species are

confirmed to use the site then it is envisaged that appropriate mitigation, such as avoiding

construction at sensitive times of year and habitat management, could be incorporated into the final

scheme.

There is no habitat on site that is suitable for Dormouse.

Maps of the area freely available on the internet were studied for any ponds within 500 m that could

support Great Crested Newts. This species can be found 500 m away from breeding ponds in suitable

terrestrial habitat, providing there are no barriers to dispersal. In this case, a few ponds were found

although most are separated from the site by barriers such as local roads, the railway and the River

Cray. There are small patches of scrub and ruderal vegetation on gravel around the site and in the

garden of the bungalow. This provides habitat that could be used for foraging by this species. Small

piles of rubble, wood and other debris around the site could provide refuge sites. The suitable areas

on site are relatively limited in extent and connectivity, although the railway embankment and river

banks provide much better habitat for Great Crested Newt, including scrub and piles of logs. At this

stage it is not recommended that specific surveys for this species are undertaken. However, if newts

are found during the development then construction activities would have to stop and a licence sought

from Natural England.

The habitats described above are also suitable for common reptiles. Therefore, a suitable mitigation

strategy (such as hand searching areas in question) will need to be developed to deal with this group

of species.

There is little habitat suitable for Badgers and no evidence of Badger activity was found on site.

However, it is possible that there could be Badger setts in the railway embankment and that, if

present, Badgers could be disturbed by development of the site (although in this context, ambient

noise and vibration levels are already likely to be high due to the railway). Further surveys are

needed to establish the presence or likely absence of this species in close proximity to the site. As

access to the railway embankment will be constrained due to Health and Safety concerns it is

probable that the survey would have to be undertaken from the site and constraints noted. If setts are

found then a suitable mitigation strategy will need to be devised. This could involve the avoidance of

of 5

works within a certain distance of the railway line or undertaking closer works under licence from

Natural England..

The buildings, scrub and trees at the site could support breeding birds. However, if all possible

roosting locations (mainly vegetation) are removed outside of the breeding season (March to August)

then no other mitigation would be required.

Summary and Conclusions

The following list summarises the key findings:

• the buildings and a single tree on-site have the potential to be used by roosting bats;

• several trees immediately off-site have the potential to be used by roosting bats;

• the habitats immediately adjacent to the site (railway embankment and river) are likely to be

used by foraging and commuting bats;

• the River Cray, immediately adjacent to the site, has the potential to support Otter or Water

Vole;

• some limited areas on site have the potential to support Great Crested Newt or common reptile

species (in combination with better habitat immediately off-site such as the railway

embankment);

• the railway embankment, immediately adjacent to the site, is suitable habitat for Badgers to dig

setts; and

• breeding birds are likely to use the site at suitable times of year.

The implications of these key findings are summarised below.

• Further surveys would be needed to determine the presence or likely absence of roosting bats

on-site in the buildings and single tree.

• The use of carefully designed lighting (in consultation with a bat ecologist) may negate the

need for surveys for roosting bats in the trees immediately off-site and night-time activity

surveys for foraging and commuting bats. If this method of impact avoidance is not possible

then further surveys may be necessary.

• The provision of a buffer zone between the development and the River Cray may negate the

need for Otter and Water Vole surveys. If this method of impact avoidance is not possible then

further surveys may be necessary.

of 5

• It may be necessary to carry out further surveys (or design suitable alternative strategies) for

Great Crested Newt and common reptiles.

• It may be necessary to carry out further surveys to establish the presence or absence of Badgers

on the railway embankment.

• Clearance of buildings and vegetation outside the main bird breeding season of early March to

late August would avoid impacts on breeding birds.

It is considered that, with adequate survey and appropriate mitigation, any potential ecological

constraints associated with the site can be overcome and would not prohibit redevelopment.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Simon Boulter (the Project Manager) on

01295 672970 or at [email protected].

Yours Sincerely,

Jan Collins

Principal Consultant

Ann Jesse

Director

ashill developments · 1. this report presents the results of an ecological survey carried out on...

Documents