METHOD STATEMENT

European Protected Species (Bats)

Property: Grassington Old Hall, Wood Lane Grassington

Figure 1: Grassington Old Hall

Report prepared by: Dave Anderson

Batworker.co.uk dave@batworker.co.uk

07894 338290

DOCUMENT 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Executive summary

Site: Location: NGR: SE0020164051

The property is located in the centre of Grassington within a large established garden with a series ofmature deciduous trees forming the western and southern boundary.

Buildings:

The Old Hall is a grade II listed building dating from the 13 th century with 17th century additions. It is astone built building with cavity walls and features three double pitched and stone slate roofs.

Bats:

An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers ofbats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested asmall roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids.

Significant bat activity was considered unlikely at the time; there was no evidence of a maternity site,transitional mating roost or hibernaculum at the property.

A dawn survey on 1st August 2014 found evidence of two small transitional roosts used by CommonPipistrelle under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and behind guttering above the entrancehall. A single Natterer's bat was seen to roost behind the lead downspout on the western face of thebuilding, in the corner formed by the dining room and snug.

An emergence survey on 7th August 2014 recorded a single Common Pipistrelle emerge from underlead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and a single Natterer's bat emerge from behind the leaddownspout.

A second dawn survey on 19th August 2014 recorded use of both the lead flashing on the roof ridge andbehind guttering by Common Pipistrelle and a single Natterer's behind the downspout.

In light of the low numbers of bats using the site, the nature of roosting, and the proposed work it is thesurveyor's opinion that a detailed Method Statement was the best way to progress with plans to carryout roof repairs while maintaing roost integrity.

An EPS development licence is not required in situations where it can be demonstrated thatsatisfactory mitigation and enhancement works are sufficient to avoid offences being committed underthe Habitat Regulations.

B introduction

B1.1 Background to activity / development

The Old Hall is being renovated and it is understood that roofing repairs will be undertaken as part ofthe development work. (Reference: Peter Harrison)

B1.2 Full details of proposed works covered by the Method Statement.

The proposed renovation works are mainly internal but will require repair to all three double pitchedroofs. It is understood that there will be no structural work or alterations as part of the proposeddevelopment.

C Survey and site assessment

C1.1 Pre-existing information on the bat species present at this site

Bat record data: records were obtained from East Lancashire Bat Group and from personalcommunications with experienced members of WYBG / ELBG.

An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers ofbats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested asmall roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids.

One maternity roost of Whiskered/Brandt's bats is recorded within 1km of the site.

C1.2 Status of the species

Common Pipistrelle is a common and widespread species typically associated with roosting inbuildings.

Natterer's bat is another widespread and common species particularly in upland areas and typicallyassociated with roosting in traditional barns and lime kilns, it has been recorded at several swarmingsites within theYorkshire Dales.

C1.3 Objectives of the surveys

Key objectives: (1) to determine the presence and / or absence of bats within the property and toconfirm species present, numbers of roosting bats likely to be present and roost status (2) anassessment of the likely level of impact of the development on a protected species (3) to determineappropriate mitigation measures and (4) establish appropriate enhancement measures for this site.

C1.4 Scaled map / plan of site

C1.5 Site and habitat description

The Old Hall is a grade II listed building dating from the 13 th century with 17th century additions. It is astone built building with cavity walls and features three double pitched and stone slate roofs.

The property is located in the centre of Grassington within a large established garden with a series ofmature deciduous trees forming the western and southern boundary.

C1.6 Field surveys undertaken at the site

The site has been surveyed on four occasions:

1. Site scoping survey: 26th July 2014

2. Dawn and site swarming survey: 1st August 2014

3. Evening emergence survey: 7th August 2014

4. Dawn and site swarming survey: 19th August 2014

Two surveyors were present:

(i) David Anderson, an experienced ecologist and bat researcher with many years experience of fieldwork and bat ecology, a founder member of the East Lancashire Bat Group and ‘Batworker.co.uk’,formerly Natural History Curator and manager of the East Lancashire Biological Records Centre.

(Natural England licence No: 20114405, Conservation, Science and Education).

(ii) Sharon Anderson, an experienced bat worker.

C1.7 Survey results

An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers ofbats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested asmall roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids.

A dawn survey on 1st August 2014 found evidence of two small transitional roosts used by CommonPipistrelle under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and behind guttering above the entrancehall. A single Natterer's bat was seen to roost behind the lead downspout on the western face of thebuilding, in the corner formed by the dining room and snug.

An emergence survey on 7th August 2014 recorded a single Common Pipistrelle emerge from underlead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and a single Natterer's bat emerge from behind the leaddownspout.

A second dawn survey on 19th August 2014 recorded use of both the lead flashing on the roof ridge andbehind guttering by Common Pipistrelle and a single Natterer's behind the downspout.

The evening emergence and dawn surveys were carried out using one Wildlife Acoustics EM3 fullspectrum detector and an Elekon Batlogger full spectrum detector.

A Sony HDR SR5 video camera in nightshot mode was used with four Infrared illuminators to monitorbats emerging and returning to the western end of the building in order to pinpoint roosting sites.

C1.8 Interpretation / evaluation of survey results

The building would appear to be used by small numbers of male bats as a satellite roost to gain accessto breeding females located in a roost somewhere to the east of the site. This is supported byconsiderable levels of song flight recorded around the grounds where male bats were advertising theirpresence.

Common pipistrelle in low numbers were recorded using two roost sites.

(1) An area of raised lead flashing on the ridge of the northernmost roof

(2) Behind guttering above the entrance hall.

A solitary Natterer's bat was recorded using a roost behind the lead downspout in the corner formed bythe dining room and snug

As a cautionary note, it is worth recording the fact that that solitary pipistrelles are sometimes present inall types of building, regardless of time of year, location or even suitability of the structure.

Common pipistrelles tend to highly mobile and capable of crevice-roosting under roofing material,fascia-soffit, gaps in stonework and around poorly-fitting doors and window frames. Experience tendsto suggest that solitary pipistrelle particularly can turn up almost anywhere and at any time.

D Impact assessment

D1.1 Short-term impacts: disturbance

Low risk; occasionally solitary roosting bats may be disturbed. Torpid bats in cold conditions are usuallyunable to move out of the way of danger. Work in that location should be stopped, any exposed bat(s)covered or removed to a small container in a dark quiet place, and advice sought immediately.

D1.2 Long-term impacts:

Roost loss: Minimal impact on a local bat population.

The destruction of a bat roost at the property is unlikely. However, in the event of bats being exposedor disturbed, seek advice immediately (see METHOD STATEMENT SUMMARY)

D1.3 Long-term impacts:

Fragmentation and isolation: minimal, the impact of the proposed development on local bat speciesis likely to be insignificant.

D1.3 Predicted scale of impact

Minimal loss of roosting sites of a common and relatively widespread species.

E Land ownership

N/A

F References:

Hundt, L., (2012) BCT Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines – 2nd Edition.

JNCC / BCT., The State of the UK’s bats. NBMP Population Trends 2012.

Mitchell-Jones, AJ., McLeish, AP., (2004), JNCC Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition.

Mitchell-Jones, AJ., (2004), English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines, version January 2004

Morris, C., (2009), The ‘Morris’ Batslate, Vincent Wildlife Trust.

Natural England, Bat Mitigation details. NE Cumbria Team.

Russ, J., (2012), British Bat Calls, A Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing.

G Annexes

G1.1 Mitigation drawings – Natural England (Cumbria Team).

DOCUMENT 2: DELIVERY INFORMATION

A Mitigation and Compensation

The overall purpose of the Method Statement is to ensure that bats and their roosts are fully protectedto ensure the ‘favourable conservation status of the species’.

The Method statement is designed to minimise or remove any potential disturbance to roosting bats;this is most easily achieved through appropriate timing of the works. Works carried out in late summerand autumn (usually September / October) will ensure that young bats are able to fly and forageindependently and there is no risk to pregnant females or flightless pups. Spring (usually March / April)is just before the main birthing season and defined as May to August when major works should beavoided.

The Bat Mitigation Guidelines (BMG) specify that sites with bat roosts of commoner / rarer speciesrequire ‘flexibility over provision of bat boxes, access to new buildings etc. [with] no conditions abouttiming or monitoring’ (reference: BMG, Figure 4, page 39 – Guidelines for proportionate mitigation).

A Timing constraints

Roofing work should take place between October and March.

Although the optimum times are considered to be during the spring and autumn periods when bats areleast vulnerable to roost disturbance. (Bat Mitigation Guidelines, pp.42 / 43).

B Works to be undertaken by the ecologist or suitably experienced person

B.1 Capture and exclusion

Not required. In the unlikely event of bats being exposed or disturbed, contact Dave Andersonimmediately for emergency advice; a site visit will be arranged to assess the situation and if necessarysafely remove bats from the site.

C Works to be undertaken by the Developer/Landowner

C.1 Bat roosts

C1.1 In-situ retention of roost(s)

Provision of purpose-built ridge tiles and access slates into roof works. Two ridge tiles (Natural Englandridge tile design 4A) should be installed enabling bats to enter the cavity formed beneath roofingmaterial and under felt / sarking membranes.

C1.2 Modification of existing roosts(s)

N/A

C1.3 New roost creation (including bat house, cotes and Bat boxes)

Four access slates (Natural England ‘slate’ design detail 1B) to be installed on roof pitches either sideof ridge. Details of both roof access designs are shown in APPENDIX A.

D Post-development monitoring

Not required (BMG, page 39)

E Timetable of works

Page 9 of 14

Roofing work should take place betweenOctober and March. The proposed worksshould proceed with caution and vigilance forthe unexpected presence of roosting / torpidbats

If bats are absent continue with proposed works

If solitary bats being are disturbed or exposed during the course of the work STOP WORK in that area and seek advice immediately.

Bats can be safely removed from site by ecological consultant or experienced / licensed person

Work requiring bat-friendly design adaptations to be implemented – consult ecologist if further advice is needed

Roof adaptations to accommodate ridge and slate access points for bats should be in place at the design stage

METHOD STATEMENT SUMMARY: Grassington Old Hall, Wood Lane, Grassington.

Action: Method: Notes:

1. Timing of the works Roofing works to take place between October and March BMG Table 6.1Page 37

2. Design adaptations Bat-friendly designs ie. ridge and slate access points, should be included in the designs atthe earliest opportunity.

Design adaptations are described in COMPENSATORY WORKS below; Natural England’sdrawings are shown in APPENDIX A.

3. Accidental exposure of bats

EMERGENCY ADVICE

In the unlikely event of bats or their roosts being exposed or vulnerable to harm, suspendfurther work in that area. Cover the exposed bats to reduce any further risk of harm and seekadvice immediately.

Call Dave Anderson (Batworker) on 07894 338290 (mobile); a site visit will be arranged toassess the situation and recover any bats / safely remove them from site.

4. Legal responsibilities All contractors and project managers should be made aware of the legal protection affordedall species of bat in the UK and procedures should be in place to mitigate for the potentialimpact on bats before any building work is undertaken.

The onus lies with the applicant to satisfy herself that no offence will be committed if thedevelopment goes ahead, regardless of whether planning permission has been granted.

5. Site Contractors. A copy of the Method Statement should be available to site / project managers in advance ofany demolition works being carried out.

6. Compliance The existence of a Method Statement helps to establish a defence againstprosecution for intentional (WCA), deliberate (Habitat Regulations.) orreckless (WCA) disturbance of bats or damage to roosts.

A Method Statements is normally required by the local planning authorityto ensure that procedures are in place before the development works arecarried out. It is the responsibility of the LPA to ensure that the proposedworks would not result in breaches of the Habitat Regulations.

Post-development monitoring is not required although the local planningauthority may require further inspection of the site to ensure that thedesign adaptations have been correctly installed as recommended.

(WCA) W i l d l i f e a ndCountrysideAct.

(Habitat Regs.)(NaturalHabitats &c.)Regulations( 1 9 9 4 ) ( a samended2010).

ENHANCEMENT / COMPENSATORY WORKS

ACTION METHOD:

1. Ridge access tiles

2. Bat access slates

PROVIDE: 2 No. ridge tiles; these should be incorporated into the roof design allowing bats to enter the roof void via a narrow gap beneath the ridge tile (20mm – 25mm maximum gap to encourage access by bats but deny access to birds.

NB. There must be a gap provided through the roofing felt to allow bats to enter the roof void.

See example of RIDGE TILE ACCESS 4A recommended by Natural England.

PROVIDE; 4 No. access slates per roof

See example of BAT ACCESS SLATE 1B recommended by Natural England.

The Morris Bat Slate is a similar design to the bat access slate 1B above and full details are attached.

NB. There must be a gap provided through the roofing felt to allow bats to enter the roof void.

A4 versions of these designs are shown in Appendix A.

These modifications are relatively easy to install. To be fully effective, the design modifications should first be discussed with the ecological consultant to ensure the roof adaptations are correctly installed.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

This fully illustrated PDF document is available online