Protected Species Survey Report

(Version 2)
For
Heath House,
Congleton Road,
Kermincham,
Congleton,
CW12 2LL.

Unit B1.1,
Clarence Mill,
Clarence Road,
Bollington,
Macclesfield,
SK10 5JZ.
Office: 01625 560789
E-mail:nlg@nlgeco.com
June 2012

Contents
Executive Summary

1.

2.

3.

Introduction
1.1 Background

1.2 Legislation

Methodology

2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.2 Amphibian Survey

2.3 Building Inspection

Results

3.1 Description of Habitats

3.2 Amphibian Survey

3.3 Building Inspection

4.

Site Status Assessment

5.

Impact Assessment

6.

Mitigation and Compensation

10

6.1 Licensing Requirements

10

6.2 Compensation

10

6.3 Timing of Works

11

6.4 Habitat Creation

11

6.5 Conclusion

12

References

12

Appendices

13

Phase 1 Habitat Plan

13

Target Notes

15

Photographs

16

Architects Drawings

19

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Executive Summary
A protected species survey was commissioned by the owners of Heath House,
Kermincham, Cheshire to accompany a planning application for the demolition and
redevelopment of the detached house and adjoining buildings. This submission includes
the results of a phase1 habitat survey, amphibian survey, buildings inspection and three
bat activity and emergence surveys.
A thorough inspection of the interior and exterior of the buildings was carried out to
identify possible use of the buildings as a bat roost. Large quantities of old and fresh
brown long eared bat droppings were found within the roof void of the swimming pool
and adjoining stables during the inspection. Small quantities of brown long eared bat
and pipistrelle bat droppings were found in the roof void of the house. Subsequently
three bat activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation
Trust best practice guidelines.
Bats receive full protection under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981. They are also protected under the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010.
The bat activity surveys identified a brown long eared bat maternity roost within the loft
void of the swimming pool and stables; with the roost access point being from the
stables with bats roosting in the stables roof void and flying internally via a corridor and
open loft hatch to roost in the swimming pool roof void. A maximum count of 17 brown
long eared bats emerged from the stables. Occasional common pipistrelle bat and
brown long eared bat roost sites are also present in the roof of the house with lone bats
sighted emerging. From the surveys carried out the stables and swimming pool are
considered to be of high conservation significance for brown long eared bats being
utilised as a maternity roost site by a medium sized colony of bats.
The proposed works will result in a high adverse impact on the favourable conservation
status of brown long eared bats and a low impact on common pipistrelle bats. A Natural
England licence will be required for the development to proceed lawfully and the three
tests need to be passed by the planning proposals. It needs to be established that:
i. The development is of overriding public interest.
ii. There is no satisfactory alternative.
iii. That the soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle and brown long eared bats
'favourable conservation status is not compromised.
Mitigation and compensation will be required to maintain and enhance the favourable
conservation status of the species. All mitigation proposals must be agreed with
Cheshire East Council and Natural England prior to the commencement of works. The
aim is to avoid the disturbance, killing and injury to any bats using the building and to
provide alternative bat roost opportunities as compensation for the loss of the existing
roosts within the main house. To ensure continued and permanent roost space for
brown long eared bats the stables will be retained and enhanced as a roost. Additional
features will be provided as potential bat roost sites on the new buildings coupled with
habitat creation to enhance site biodiversity as a whole. The works will also be timed to
minimise the potential for killing, injury and disturbance to bats during the
redevelopment and these proposals are detailed fully within Section 6 of this report.
Any devegetation work will be undertaken outside the nesting bird season.
No other ecological constraints to the redevelopment where identified during the
ecological surveys.

-1-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

1.

June 2012

Introduction

1.1
Background
This survey and report was commissioned by The Hill Family Settlement to accompany
a planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of Heath House, Congleton
Rd, Kermincham, Cheshire, CW12 2LL. The detached house has not been lived in for
several years and is over two floors with a large roof void, the existing building is of
brick construction with a ridged tile roof. This submission includes the results of a
phase 1 habitat survey, amphibian survey, an internal and external inspection of the
whole of the house and adjoining outbuildings, along with three bat activity and
emergence surveys to look for evidence of use of the buildings and there potential as
roost sites by bats and nesting birds.
1.2
Legislation
Protected species are those with statutory protection according to the following legal
Acts and Regulations:
The European Communities Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural
Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (implemented in the UK by the Conservation
(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2010).
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which gives general
protection measures for wildlife and special measures for species included on
Schedules of the Act.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW Act) 2000 amended the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 to also make it an offence to intentionally or
recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct a place that a species, listed on
Schedules of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, uses for shelter or protection.
The repealed Section 74 of the CROW Act listed habitats and species important
to biological diversity in England, in accordance with the 1992 UN Convention
on Biodiversity (Habitats and Species Action Plans under The UK Biodiversity
Action Plan is the means by which the government complied with its duty under
Section 74).
Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)
replaces Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 and refers
to the list of organisms and habitats of principal importance published under the
repealed Section 74 of the CROW Act 2000. The Secretary of State must take
such steps to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of
habitat included in the list and promote the taking by others of such steps.
The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) which principally relates to animal welfare
rather than species rarity.
Of particular relevance to Heath House is the legal protection afforded to bats which
receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are also
protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
- It is an offence for any person to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bat.
- It is an offence to intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct access to any
place that a wild bat uses for shelter or protection. This is taken to mean all
bat roosts whether bats are present or not.
- It is an offence to intentionally disturb any wild bat while it is occupying a
structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection.

-2-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

In this sense a bat roost has been interpreted to mean any structure or place which is
used for shelter or protection whether or not bats are present at the time. A bat roost
may be defined (AM Hutson 1993) as either:
(i) Spring gathering roosts
(ii) Maternity roosts
(iii) Mating roosts
(iv) Night roost and feeding roosts
(v) Prehibernal roosts
(vi) Hibernation roosts
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act
to also make it an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct a
place that bats use for shelter or protection. The term reckless is defined by the case
of Regina v Caldwell 1982. The prosecution has to show that a person either
deliberately took an unacceptable risk, or failed to notice or consider an obvious risk.
Licences to disturb or take bats can be issued for certain purposes under Section 16 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under Regulation 44 of the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, permitting activities that would otherwise be
illegal under the legislation. Licences can take upto thirty working days to be issued by
Natural England. If a Natural England licence is required for the development to
proceed lawfully then three tests need to be passed by the proposals. It needs to be
established that:
1. The development is of overriding public interest.
2. There is no satisfactory alternative.
3. That brown long eared and common pipistrelle
conservation status is not compromised.

bats

'favourable

Where impacts on bats are unavoidable mitigation will be required to maintain and
enhance the favourable conservation status of bats. Losses of bat roosts must be
compensated for by the provision of new roosting sites and planting of new foraging
habitat. Mitigation measures will need to be designed on a site specific basis and only
in consultation with an expert. All mitigation proposals must be agreed with Cheshire
East Council and Natural England and put in place prior to the commencement of
works.

-3-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

2.

June 2012

Methodology

2.1
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Phase 1 survey is a description of habitats based upon the plant species present and
also includes records of evidence or potential for the presence of legally protected or
notable faunal species / groups. The survey followed Phase 1 habitat survey
methodology (JNCC, 1993) and was extended to assess faunal potential. This involves
walking the whole site, mapping and describing different habitats (for example:
woodland, grassland, scrub); evidence of fauna and faunal habitat is also recorded (for
example: droppings, tracks, or specialist habitat such as ponds for breeding
amphibians).
This modified approach to the Phase 1 survey is in accordance with the approach
recommended by the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (IEA, 1995).
The initial survey was undertaken on the 16th May 2011 by Neil Lee-Gallon, CEnv,
MIEEM. This is within the optimum period for Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
A walkover survey was also undertaken by Neil Lee-Gallon on 28th May 2012 to check
for any changes on site.
2.2
Amphibian Survey
The methodology for the amphibian survey followed Natural Englands Great Crested
Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001) as an assessment of the presence /
absence of the species.
Four survey visits were made to the pond within the grounds of Heath House,
employing all three of the following survey methods:

Direct daylight observation was used to search for frog spawn and tadpoles,
toad strings and tadpoles, and newt eggs.
Night searching used a high powered torch (1,000,000 candlepower). The
edge of each pond was searched for amphibians at a rate of approximately 20
minutes per 50 linear metres.
Bottle traps were set at approximately 2m intervals around the accessible
shoreline of those ponds which held water deep enough to set traps in. The
traps were checked the following morning and removed. The traps used were 2
litre bottle-traps supported by green canes tipped with high visibility marker
tape to aid relocation.

Each survey visit was double manned by Neil Lee- Gallon, CEnv, MIEEM a licensed
amphibian surveyor (Natural England License: (20111256) with the assistance of Laura
Bowden (Assistant Ecologist). The ponds are indicated on Plan 1, Appendix 1.
2.3
Building Inspection
An inspection of the interior and exterior of the buildings was undertaken on the
mornings of the 16th May 2011 and afternoon of 14th July 2011 by Neil Lee-Gallon, C
Env, MIEEM, a licensed bat worker (20112885) to identify the possible use of the house
and adjoining buildings as a bat roost.
Externally the walls, roof and any associated voids were inspected with high powered
binoculars and high powered torch (1,000,000 candlepower) for staining around
potential entrance points, bat droppings, scratch marks and feeding remains. The

-4-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

doorways and windowsills of the building were also inspected for the presence of bat
droppings and feeding remains.
Internally all of the rooms and roof void were inspected for the presence of bat
droppings, dead bats and feeding remains with the aid of ladders and torch.
Any evidence of nesting birds on the exterior or interior of the buildings was also noted
during the building inspection.
2.4
Bat Activity and Emergence Surveys
The bat emergence and activity surveys concentrated on the front, side and rear
elevations of the house and adjoining buildings. Five surveyors (Neil Lee-Gallon, Laura
Bowden, Steve Ward, Andy Leese and Laura Belfield) were in position, fifteen minutes
before sunset on the evenings of the 13th June, 17th July and 22nd August 2011. The
table below gives the weather conditions during the surveys.
Date
13th June
17th July
22nd August

Temperature
14c
18c
16c

Sunset
21.42
21.31
20.21

Cloud
1/8
0/8
8/8

Wind
2/10
No wind
2/10

Weather
Dry
Dry
Dry

Species identification was aided by using Pettersson D230 and Batbox Duet
Heterodyne and Frequency Division Bat Detectors. The frequency division was
recorded onto a mini disc and the results analysed using the Batsound and Batscan
computer programs, aiding species identification through the analysis of sonograms.

-5-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

3.

June 2012

Results

3.1
Description of Habitats
The grounds of Heath House are predominantly amenity grassland maintained to a
short sward as lawn with extensive conifer plantations planted around the boundary of
the garden to screen the house and grounds. Shrub and conifer planting is also present
within the grounds along with several mature broadleaved trees. A band of mature
broad leaved English oak (Quercus robur) woodland is located at the southern end of
the garden (target note 1, Appendices). All of the mature broadleaved trees are to be
retained and full details are provided within the independent tree survey report. A
phase 1 habitat plan is also included within the appendices.
A garden pond is present within the grounds having steep banks and a relatively
diverse aquatic flora (target note 2). The pond is surrounded by rank semi improved
neutral grassland dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and meadow grass
species (Poa spp). A mature defunct species rich hedgerow (target note 3) bounds the
northern edge of the access track.
The mature trees were assessed for their potential to provide roost opportunities for tree
dwelling bat species. All the conifers and majority of broad leaved trees on site are
early mature to mature and considered to be of negligible to low value to roosting bats.
Only the mature oak (target note 4) was assessed as being of moderate value to
roosting bats having some old cracks and crevices from limb loss, this tree was subject
to two bat emergence surveys.
The land surrounding Heath House is managed intensively as arable farmland and
pasture with mature hedgerows bounding the fields. No evidence was found of other
protected species such as badger (Meles meles) within the grounds of Heath House,
several rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) burrows and scrapes are present around the
grounds and this had not changed in May 2012.
3.2
Amphibian Survey
The garden pond at Heath House was the only pond identified within 250m of the
property and proposed development site. The table below includes the results for the
amphibian survey.
Pond

P1

HSI

0.65

Dates of
Surveys
15/04/11
19/04/11
27/04/11
04/05/11

Min
Temp
c
7
8
10
8

Trap

Torch

0
0
0
1x smooth
newt

Toad
0
0
0

Results
Eggs
Toad Strings
0
0
0

Species
Present
Common Toad
Smooth newt

The garden pond at Heath House supports a small population of breeding common toad
(Bufo bufo) and a small population of smooth newts (Lissotriton vulgaris). No great
crested newts were recorded during any of the four amphibian survey visits.
3.3
Building Inspection
Heath House is a large detached house which has been extended over the years to
adjoin a swimming pool building and the old stables with single storey garage, the
buildings were inspected separately and are described individually below. Photographs
of the buildings are included within the appendices.

-6-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

The House
Heath House (target note 5) is of brick build with a ridged gable end tile roof. The brick
work is in good condition with mortar intact and no cracks or crevices of value as roost
sites to bats. The roof is in generally good condition with only occasional raised roof
and ridge tiles, the eaves appear sealed at the side elevations and gable ends, with
only a minor gap identified on the lead flashing at the base of the chimney stack. There
are no barge boards, soffits or fascia boards to the exterior of the property. The ground
floor windows are boarded up following numerous break-ins at the empty property. All
the windows and doors are uPVC with no gaps around their edges. The external
inspection of the house revealed no evidence of roosting bats or nesting birds.
Internally no evidence was found of roosting bats within the ground or first floor rooms.
The loft void is in two halves all accessible for detailed inspection. Internally the roof is
lined with a hessian bitumen liner with exposed timber ridge beam. The internal
inspection revealed a small cluster (c5) of old pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus spp) droppings
at the western gable end. In addition a small cluster (c10) brown long eared bat
(Plecotus auritus) droppings were identified midway within the roof void beneath a small
gap in the roof liner.
The Swimming Pool
The swimming pool building (target note 6) adjoins the house by an internal corridor.
The building is single storey of brick construction with a hipped slate roof overhanging
at the eaves. Externally the brick work is in good condition with the mortar intact. All
windows and doors are boarded up on the exterior. The overhanging eaves are sealed
with no potential access points for bats or nesting birds to the interior. The slate roof
and ridge tiles are in good condition with only occasional slightly raised roof slates; the
ridge tiles are mortared on with no gaps identified for roosting bats. No evidence was
found of bats on the exterior of the swimming pool building.
Internally the pool contains no water and is in a state of disrepair, numerous (>100)
fresh and old brown long eared bat droppings were identified on the ground floor of the
pool building. The subsequent inspection on 14th July, under licence, inspected the loft
void which is open with no loft hatch cover present revealing large accumulations of old
and fresh brown long eared bat droppings directly beneath and along the length of the
ridge beam. In addition at least six brown long eared bats were present roosting at the
meeting point of the ridge beam and hip roof trusses.
Internally on the ground floor the swimming pool building is connected by an open
doorway to the adjoining stables, the roof void of the swimming pool is not adjoined with
either the house or stables.
The Stables
The stables (target note 7) converted to a garage on the ground floor are of brick
construction with a gable end ridged tile roof, the brick work and roof are generally
intact with no features identified as potential roost sites for bats, other than the vented
ridge tiles along the ridge of the roof. The eaves overhang slightly with the majority of
windows and doors boarded up on the exterior, the exception being the garage doors
and remaining split stable door to the western elevation. Two fresh brown long eared
bat droppings were identified stuck to the split stable door on its exterior face.
Internally numerous (>200) fresh and old brown long eared bat droppings were
identified on the ground floor of the stables / pool building corridor. The subsequent
inspection on 14th July, under licence, inspected the loft void which is accessed by
ladder from the corridor revealed accumulations of old and fresh brown long eared bat
droppings at the southern gable end of the stables loft void were the void is darkest.
-7-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

The remainder of the loft void has three sets of small roof windows and has brown long
eared droppings scattered throughout these are of mixed age and appear to be voided
during internal flights by bats. Four brown long eared bats were present roosting on
the ridge beam and two brown long eared bats were flying internally.
A single storey, flat roofed brick garage has been adjoined to the stables and no
evidence was found of bats using the garage as a roost site internally or externally.
No active or disused birds nests were found within the old stables, old bird nests are
present within ventilation holes within the brick work.
3.3
Bat Activity and Emergence Surveys
th
13 June 2011
At 21.59hrs a brown long eared bat was sighted flying from the direction of the western
side elevation of the stables.
At 22.03 hrs a brown long eared bat emerged from behind the climbing plant on the
western elevation of the stables. A further 15 brown long eared bats emerged from the
same location between 22.07hrs and 22.28 hrs. Making a total of 17 brown log eared
bats emerging from the stables. All of the brown long eared bats flew eastward along
the line of trees bounding the gardens.
A lone brown long eared bat emerged from the roof of the main house at its slightly
raised hip midway along to the southern elevation (exact point of emergence not
identified) at 22.05hrs.
Between 21.51 hrs and 22.07 hrs a lone common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)
foraged continuously to the north of the house, the bat appeared suddenly from the
direction of the roof of the house but was not observed emerging.
No bats were observed emerging from the mature oak tree.
14th July 2011
Between 21.59 hrs and 22.44 hrs a total of 13 brown long eared bats emerged from the
stables, 11 from behind the climbing plant to the western elevation of the stables, with
two emerging from the top of the split stable door. A surveyor was located on the
interior of the swimming pool building and a total of 9 brown long eared bats were
observed flying from the loft hatch and around the pool before flying out of the corridor
and into the stables.
A surveyor was also located in an up stairs window looking down onto the roof of the
swimming pool building, and no bats emerged from the roof of the building. No bats
emerged from the house or its roof.
22nd August 2011
Between 20.45 hrs and 21.17 hrs a total of 16 brown long eared bats emerged from the
stables. With 4 emerging from the central ridge vent on the roof, 10 from behind the
climbing plant and 2 from the top of the stable door.
A lone common pipistrelle bat emerged from the roof of the house at 20.49 hrs to the
northern elevation, again the exact point of emergence was not pin pointed.
No bats were observed emerging from the swimming pool roof. No bats were observed
emerging from the mature oak tree.

-8-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

4.

June 2012

Site Status Assessment

From the survey results it has been concluded that the swimming pool and stables are
used as a maternity roost site by a colony of brown long eared bats.
In addition the roof of the house provides an occasional roost site for lone common
pipistrelle and brown long eared bats. Common pipistrelle and brown long eared bats
are the most common species of bat occurring throughout Cheshire and the United
Kingdom.
The garden and particularly the woodland habitat provide valuable invertebrate rich
foraging habitat for the brown long eared maternity colony and individual bat species.
No evidence was found of the mature oak being used as a roost site by tree dwelling
bat species.
From the amphibian survey results it can be stated that great crested newts do not pose
a constraint to the proposed redevelopment.

5.

Impact Assessment

The proposed demolition and redevelopment of Heath House Hall will lead to the
disturbance and loss of a brown long eared bat maternity roost site and individual
common pipistrelle and brown long eared bat occasional roost sites.
The impacts upon bats resulting from the proposed demolition and redevelopment of
the buildings are summarised below. These adverse impacts are considered to
constitute a significant impact on the favourable conservation status of the local
population of brown long eared bats and common pipistrelle bats.
Impacts will result from the loss and disturbance of

High Impact from the loss of a brown long eared bat maternity roost site
within the swimming pool building.

High Impact from the disturbance of a brown long eared bat maternity
roost site within the stables building.

Low Impact from the loss of an occasional common pipistrelle summer

roost sites within the roof of the house.

Low Impact from the loss of an occasional brown long eared bat summer
roost site within the roof void of the house.

Potential for killing and injury of individual bats during demolition.

The brown long eared bat maternity roost is considered to be of high conservation
significance in the context of East Cheshire. The proposed works unmitigated will result
in a high adverse impact on the favourable conservation status of brown long eared
bats.

-9-

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

6.

June 2012

Mitigation and Compensation

6.1
Licensing Requirements
As the proposed redevelopment will compromise the legal protection that is given to
bats a Natural England licence will be required to carry out the works lawfully. As part
of the licensing process the local planning authority will have to provide Natural England
with details of how protected species issues were dealt with through the planning
process. In particular Natural England may not issue a license if the following three
tests cannot be passed by the proposals. It needs to be established by Cheshire East
Council that:
i.
The development is of overriding public interest.
ii.
There is no satisfactory alternative.
iii.
The bats 'favourable conservation status is not compromised.
The first two tests are decided upon by the planners whilst the third test will require
appropriate mitigation and compensation.
In order for a licence to be granted mitigation and compensation will be required. This
will offset the adverse impact from the proposed demolition and ensure that the
populations of brown long eared bats and common pipistrelle bats are maintained at a
favourable conservation status at Hornpipe Hall. The aim of mitigation is to avoid the
disturbance, killing and injury to bats using the house and to provide an alternative roost
space for brown long eared and common pipistrelle bats.
6.2
Compensation
Brown long eared bats favour roosts within buildings that have a large roof void to
enable free flight within the roof space. This is currently available and utilised on within
the roof void of the stables and adjoining swimming pool buildings at Heath House.
Pipistrelle bats typically roost within crevices in buildings and the exact roost site within
the roof of the house was not identified.
To compensate for the loss of the brown long eared maternity roost within the roof void
of the swimming pool building it is proposed to retain and enhance the existing stables
with the construction of an additional storey and roof void to create an L shaped
building as indicated on the appended Architectural Drawings. The existing access
points used by the bats will remain unaltered during the works enabling the continued
use of the stables as a permanent brown long eared maternity roost integral to the
proposed redevelopment.
The additional roost space will be of equal volume to that lost above the swimming pool,
of the same east / west orientation, with features included internally to enhance
available roost opportunities for brown long eared bats. These features will include
sections of timber sarking between exposed roof timbers, hessian bitumen liner with
occasional slots cut in, and an internal bat box on the eastern gable end. To prevent
shading of the additional roost space roof the mature conifers to the south of the stables
gable end will be felled. Any tree felling or shrub removal to accommodate the proposed
development will be undertaken outside the nesting bird season between September
and February inclusive.
To provide further bat roost opportunities on the new buildings, gaps of 20mm wide by
300mm long will be provided as potential access points for bats to the roof void of the
new swimming pool at the eaves and apex of the gable end (see appended
architectural drawings).

- 10 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

As interim compensation and to provide alternative roost sites during the construction
phase of the redevelopment four Schwegler 2F bat boxes will be erected on mature
trees at heights from 4m to 8m at various locations outside the construction site.
6.3
Timing of Works
The redevelopment will be in phases, Phase 1 incorporating the construction of the
additional roost space, sealing of the corridor with blocks or brick between the
swimming pool and house and the demolition of the house. The demolition of the
swimming pool will only commence on completion of the additional roost space and at
the appropriate time of year to avoid the periods when bats are most vulnerable. The
additional roost will be constructed during the autumn to early spring months during the
initial phase of the redevelopment and only broken through into the existing roof void of
the stables on its completion.
Prior to any breakthrough into the existing stables roof void during early spring
(March/April) internal inspections will be made to ensure no bats are present at the
point of entry. Provided no bats are present roof tiles and timbers will be removed by
hand under the supervision of the licensed ecologist. On completion of the
breakthrough and sealing of the existing and additional roost spaces thorough internal
checks will be made within the swimming pool roof void during early spring or autumn
only to avoid the periods when bats are most vulnerable. If no bats are present then the
corridor access between the stables and pool building will be sealed and demolition of
the swimming pool building will commence either during early spring or autumn.
The house will be demolished during the initial phase of the development; this will result
in the loss of occasional brown long eared bat and common pipistrelle bat roost sites.
To minimise the potential for the killing or injury of individual bats using the roof of the
house as a roost the demolition and removal of the roof will be carried out slowly using
hand tools under the supervision of the licensed ecologist between October and May.
Scaffold will be erected to the eaves of the building and the ridge tiles will be removed
by hand under the supervision of the licensed ecologist. Checks for roosting bats will
be made and the first course of tiles removed slowly and steadily with checks made on
a regular basis. This process will continue to the eaves when the liner and timbers will
be removed by hand under supervision.
The swimming pool will be demolished in the same manner at the appropriate time of
year, this may occur later on in Phase 2 of the development. A detailed method
statement of all working methods will be required to accompany the Natural England
Licence application.
6.4
Habitat Creation
To enhance the available foraging habitat for bats around the grounds of Heath House
and orchard and herb garden will be created adjacent to the stables. In addition a band
of woodland edge habitat will be planted to soften the edges of the conifer plantation
around the grounds. This will incorporate native broad leaved scrub and tree species
which flower and fruit examples being wild cherry (Prunus avium), bird cherry (Prunus
padus), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), crab apple (Malus sylvestris), pear (Pyrus
communis), apple (Malus domesticus), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn
(Crataegus monogyna), dog rose (Rosa canina), elder (Sambucus nigra), hazel
(Corylus avellana) and silver birch (Betula pendula). The addition of climbers such as
ivy (Hedera helix) and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) and bedding plants
utilising native species would further enhance the gardens as habitat for invertebrates,
mammals and birds.

- 11 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

A pond is also proposed under the new house location and details are included within
the landscape proposals.
6.5
Conclusion
The retention and enhancement of the stables as a roost site along with the provision
of potential roost opportunities on the new build and the timing of the proposed
demolition works aims to maintain the maternity colony of brown long eared bats and
common pipistrelle bats at a favourable conservation status at Heath House. Whilst the
proposed habitat creation as it matures will enhance the available foraging habitat for
bats and improve site biodiversity as a whole.

References
Bat Conservation Trust (2000); Bats and Trees, a guide to the management of trees.
The Bat Conservation Trust.
Bat Conservation Trust (2007); Bat Surveys Best Practice Guidelines
English Nature (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines.
Hutson, A. M. (1993). Action plan for conservation of bats in the United Kingdom. The
Bat Conservation Trust, London.
JNCC (1999). Bat workers manual. Eds Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. Joint
Nature Conservation Committee.
Russ, Jon (1999) The Bats of Britain and Europe. Alana Books

- 12 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Appendices
Phase 1 Habitat Plan

- 13 -

Heath House
Phase 1 Habitat Plan
Standard broadleaved tree

77.7m

Ia Qr Bet

A
Leyl

<
<3

Broadleaved woodland
Plantation broadleaved woodland

<4

Coniferous woodland
Qr

Plantation mixed woodland

<
<5

A
Heath House

<
<6

<
<7

Scattered scrub
Semi improved neutral grassland

SI

Open water
Til
Til

Amenity grassland

Til

Species poor hedgerow

Qr
Qr

Species rich hedgerow with trees

Qr
<
<1

Bare ground

SI
SI
<
<

Building
<
<

Fs

Bet
Fs
Ia
Leyl

2
Fs

SI

Qr
Til

77.1m

Target note
Betula sp
Fagus sylvatica
Ilex aquifolium
Leylandii
Quercus robur
Tilia sp

380700

380600

SCALE
NTS
DRAWN BY

LB

CHECKED BY

NLG

DATE

23/08/11

REVISION
A

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Target Notes
Target Note

Description

Comments on Potential
Biodiversity Value

Band of mature oak woodland dominated by English

oak (Quercus robur), with occasional common lime
(Tilia europaeus), with understorey of rhododendron
(Rhododendron ponticum) and bramble (Rubus
fruticosus agg). Bounded to road by Lleylandii, Laurel
(Prunus lusitanica) and holly (Ilex aquifolium)
hedgerow.

Mature oak woodland of high

biodiversity value.

Pond with steep banks possibly stocked with coarse

fish in the past. No great crested newts found to be
present in spring 2011. Vegetation includes branched
bur reed (Sparganium erectum), rigid hornwort
(Ceratophyllum demersum), yellow flag iris (Iris
pseudacorus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), greater pond
sedge (Carex riparia) and reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea).

Pond used as breeding habitat by

small population of common toad
(Bufo bufo) a UK Biodiversity
Action Plan (BAP) Priority
Species.

Defunct and leggy species rich hedgerow with

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), oak (Quercus robur),
holly (Ilex aquifolium), birch (Betula spp), horse
chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), rose species
(Rosa spp), beech (Fagus sylvatica) and elder
(Sambucus nigra).

UK BAP Priority Habitat

Mature English oak (Quercus robur).

Features of moderate value to

roosting bats, no bats recorded
emerging from tree during bat
activity surveys.

Heath House

Bat Roost

Swimming Pool

Bat Roost

The Stables

Bat Roost

- 15 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Photographs

Northern elevation of Heath House

Northern elevation of swimming pool building

- 16 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Western elevation of stables, with emergence points used by brown long eared bats circled.

Eastern elevation of stables with single storey part of building visible to be enhanced as roost
site circled in red. Also conifer to be removed to reduce shading indicated by arrow..

- 17 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Southern elevation of Heath House

Southern elevation of swimming pool.

- 18 -

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House

June 2012

Architects Drawings

- 19 -