6. LRB 406 – Notice of Review Against Refusal of Planning

6. LRB 406 – Notice of Review Against Refusal of Planning Permission inPrinciple for Erection of Dwellinghouse at Site at Chapel of Seggat,Auchterless, Turriff – Reference: APP/2017/0462

(i) Notice of Review, Review Statement and Supporting Documents assubmitted by the Applicant

78

79

80

81

82

83

Proposal DetailsProposal Name 100035258Proposal Description Replacement dwelling.Address Local Authority Aberdeenshire CouncilApplication Online Reference 100035258-002

Application StatusForm completeMain Details completeChecklist completeDeclaration completeSupporting Documentation completeEmail Notification complete

Attachment DetailsNotice of Review System A41146 - 020 Attached A11146 - SLP Attached A41146 Soakaway certificate Attached A4Chapel of seggat bat survey report Attached A4Chapel of seggat SPP method statement

Attached A4

1146 - Statement of reasons for seeking a review

Attached A4

Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0Notice of Review-002.xml Attached A0

84

John Wink Ltd trading as John Wink Design. Registered in Scotland No. 378679 VAT Reg No. 114 1600 71

PL Ref: APP/2017/0462 Our Ref: 1146 11th January 2018 Planning Permission in Principle for Erection of Dwellinghouse Site at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless, Turriff, Aberdeenshire Statement of Reasons for Seeking a Review The above application for Planning Permission in Principle was refused because the planning officer believes that the proposal is “contrary to Policy R2 Housing and employment elsewhere in the countryside contained in the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2017’. The proposal was also deemed unacceptable as the proposed replacement house ‘is not sited on the same site as the existing house’. This application was previously favoured for approval by the planning officer prior to the introduction of the new Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2017. However, the application was withdrawn following the requirement of a bat survey which could not be provided as the season was unacceptable for carrying out the survey. The application was re-submitted but during this period, the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2017 had now been adopted. The re-submission is now deemed ‘contrary to Policy R2’ as the replacement ‘is not sited on the same site as the existing house’. Having reviewed Policy R2, we believe that the proposal is an exceptional circumstance that requires the relocation of the replacement dwelling. The policy also states that; ‘Siting and design of any development will be a primary consideration. The retention and refurbishment of vernacular buildings and the reuse of brownfield land will always be preferred and the character of these buildings should be retained.’ The location of the replacement dwelling has been decided by taking this statement into consideration, where the location accommodates the best interest in the safety of the users as well as the operation of the farming business. The existing derelict dwelling is adjoining the original quadrangle traditional in-use farm steading, with a modern agricultural building infilling the u-shaped steading. Locating the replacement dwelling within the same footprint of the existing dwelling is not feasible for the farming business nor for occupants of the new house. Developing the proposed dwelling so close to the working area of the farm will terminate the running of the enterprise, which is why the proposal has been located to a site as close as practically possible to the existing site of the house. Given the support for the previous application, we are very disappointed that this application has been recommended for refusal. We therefore seek to appeal the decision to hopefully gain support for the application as a slight departure from the newly renewed policy. John Wink Design

85

Pro

po

sa

ls fo

r n

ew

ag

ricu

ltu

ra

l b

uild

in

g

Existin

g fa

rm

ho

use

to

be

d

em

olish

ed

Chapel of S

eggat

Proposed A

ccess

Proposed D

ouble G

arage

Proposed 4 bed. storey and a

half replacem

ent dw

elling

Proposed septic tank and foul

water soakaw

ay

Proposed surface w

ater

soakaw

ay

Proposed planting

p

r

o

p

o

s

e

d

p

o

s

t

+

w

i

r

e

f

e

n

c

e

b

o

u

n

d

a

r

y

p

r

o

p

o

s

e

d

p

o

s

t

+

w

i

r

e

f

e

n

c

e

b

o

u

n

d

a

r

y

e

x

is

tin

g

b

o

u

n

d

a

ry

e

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

b

o

u

n

d

a

r

y

Parking and

turning area

Re

v:

De

ta

ils:

Da

te

:B

y:

Pro

po

se

d R

ep

la

ce

me

nt D

we

llin

g

Ch

ap

el o

f S

eg

ga

t

Au

ch

te

rle

ss

Tu

rriff

Ab

erd

ee

n E

nd

ow

me

nts T

ru

st

Pro

po

se

d S

ite

P

la

n

as noted

Decem

ber 2016

1146 - 020

-

NORTH

Proposed S

ite P

lan

Scale 1:250

NO

TE

:

Dim

en

sio

ns m

ust n

ot b

e sca

le

d fro

m th

is d

ra

win

g. If in

a

ny d

ou

bt - a

sk! A

ll d

im

en

sio

ns

to

b

e ch

ecke

d p

rio

r to

w

ork co

mm

en

cin

g o

r p

rio

r to

a

ny co

mp

on

en

ts b

ein

g

ma

nu

fa

ctu

re

d. A

ny d

iscre

pa

ncy to

b

e re

po

rte

d. A

ll w

ork a

nd

m

ate

ria

l to

co

mp

ly fu

lly

with

a

ll cu

rre

nt B

ritish

S

ta

nd

ard

s C

od

es o

f P

ra

ctice

, b

uild

in

g re

gu

la

tio

ns, IE

E

re

gu

la

tio

ns a

nd

a

ll H

SE

a

cts.

Pro

je

ct

Dra

win

g

Sca

le

Re

visio

n

Drg

N

o

Da

te

Mid

to

wn

o

f F

ou

dla

nd

, G

le

ns o

f F

ou

dla

nd

, H

un

tly, A

be

rd

ee

nsh

ire

, A

B5

4 6

AR

jo

hn

w

in

k d

es

ig

n

Th

is d

ra

win

g is co

pyrig

ht o

f Jo

hn

W

in

k D

esig

n. ©

86

Chapel of Seggat

Proposed Replacement Dwelling

Chapel of Seggat

Auchterless

Turriff

Aberdeen Endowments Trust

Site & Location Plan

as noted December 2016

1146 - SLP

-

Site Location Plan

Scale 1:2,500

NOTE:

Dimensions must not be scaled from this drawing. If in any doubt - ask! All dimensions

to be checked prior to work commencing or prior to any components being

manufactured. Any discrepancy to be reported. All work and material to comply fully

with all current British Standards Codes of Practice, building regulations, IEE

regulations and all HSE acts.

Project

Drawing

Scale

Revision

Drg No

Date

Midtown of Foudland, Glens of Foudland, Huntly, Aberdeenshire, AB54 6AR

john wink design

This drawing is copyright of John Wink Design. ©

Location Plan

Scale 1:25,000

87

Planning Application Ref No ..............................

CERTIFICATE FOR PROPOSED FOUL WATER SUBSURFACE SOAKAWAY

Two tests are normally required to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed drainage scheme:

1. A trial pit must be excavated to a depth of 1 metre below the proposed invert of the drain to establish whether or not the water table will interfere with the operation of the soakaway; and

2. A percolation test must be carried out to determine the area of the ground required.

Certificate

Applicant’s name ...................................................................................................................... (name of person applying for planning permission)

Address ......................................................................................................................

Site address ......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Date of test ............................................ Time ...........................................................

Weather conditions ......................................................................................................................

Trial Pit Test (see attached location plan and drainage report identifying test pit and all wells within 100 metres of test pit)

Depth of drain ..............................................................m

Depth of excavation ..............................................................m

Water table present Yes / No (delete)

Percolation Test

Time taken (means of three) ..................................................s

Percolation value Vp ..................................................s

Number of persons ..................................................

Floor area of soakaway ..................................................m²

I hereby certify that I have carried out the above tests in accordance with procedures specified in British Standard BS6297:1983, as amended by AMD6150 1990, and in conjunction with the full requirements set out within the Domestic Scottish Building StandardsTechnical Handbook (Environment Standard 3.9 Infiltration Systems), the result of which are tabulated above, and that the proposed drainage scheme detailed on the attached plans and report has been designed taking into account the recommendations in the aforementioned standards.

Signed ... .................. Date.............................................................

Name/Company ......................................................................................................................

Address ......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Qualification ......................................................................................................................

88

LickleyheadPremnay, Insch Aberdeenshire

Tel: 07557852369 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.blackhillecology.co.uk

Specialist Ecological Consultants

Bat Survey Report: the Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless

CLIENT

Aberdeen Endowment Trust C/O John Wink Design

© Black Hill Ecology 2016

89

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.blackhillecology.co.uk/

Bat Survey Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless

Control Sheet

General Report Information Report title Bat Survey Report Client Aberdeen Endowment Trust Location The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless Lead ecologist

I. Mackie Report author

Dr. I. Mackie

Black Hill Ecology has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, Aberdeen Endowment Trust, for its sole and specific use. No liability is accepted for any costs claims or losses arising from the use of this report or any part thereof for any purpose other than that for which it was specifically prepared or by any party other than Aberdeen Endowment Trust. This report was prepared by an environmental specialist

and does not purport to constitute legal advice.

Black Hill Ecology 190


Contents

A INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3

A.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................3 A.2 BAT ECOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................3 A.3 LEGISLATION .....................................................................................................................................................3

B SURVEY AND SITE ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5

B.1 PRE‐EXISTING INFORMATION ON THE BAT SPECIES AT THE SURVEY SITE.............................................................................5 B.2 STATUS OF SPECIES THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED........................................................................................................5 B.2.1 BATS WHICH MAY BE ROOSTING WITHIN THE SITE AND UK STATUS...................................................................................... 5 B.3 OBJECTIVE(S) OF SURVEY .....................................................................................................................................5 B.4 SURVEY AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................5 B.5 FIELD SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................................6 B.5.1 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 B.5.2 TIMING ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 B.5.3 WEATHER CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 6 B.5.4 PERSONNEL.............................................................................................................................................................. 6 B.6 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................7 B.6.1 DAY SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 B.6.2 DUSK SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 B.7 INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION OF SURVEY RESULTS ...............................................................................................7 B.7.1 PRESENCE/ABSENCE .................................................................................................................................................. 7 B.7.2 SITE STATUS ASSESSMENT (COMBINING QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE, FUNCTIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS) ......................... 8 B.7.3 CONSTRAINTS (FACTORS INFLUENCING SURVEY RESULTS)................................................................................................... 8

C RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 8

C.1 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................................8 C.2 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................................9

D REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 9



A Introduction

A.1 Background

Black Hill Ecology was commissioned by Aberdeen Endowment Trust to carry out a bat survey at a proposed demolition at the Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. This report describes the works undertaken during the assessment of possible effects of the development on bats at the specified site.

A.2 Bat Ecology

There are 17 species of bat currently resident in the UK. Nine species are known from Scotland. All are believed to be in continuing decline as they face many threats to their highly developed and specialised life cycles. In general, their dependence on insects has left them vulnerable to habitat destruction, land drainage, habitat fragmentation, agricultural intensification and increased use of pesticides. Their reliance on buildings and decaying trees has also made them vulnerable to sanitation felling, repairs and the use of timber treatment chemicals. In the UK, bats are generally active from late March to mid‐October, hibernating from late October to mid March. In early summer, females gather in “maternity” roosts to give birth, normally producing a single offspring per year. This slow rate of reproduction inhibits repopulation in areas of rapid decline. Bats are generally born in June/July and are dependent on their mothers for about six weeks. In autumn and winter, male and females gather for mating. The females are able to store sperm until spring when an egg may be fertilized. In winter, bats hibernate in sites that have a cool, humid and stable climate. Bats generally return to the same roost sites every year which makes them particularly vulnerable to disturbance or destruction of these sites. Some species of bat move roost frequently and use a number of different roost sites.

A.3 Legislation

The information below is intended only as guidance to the legislation relating to these species. The Acts themselves should be referred to for the correct legal wording and legal advice sought where required. All bats are included in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), which implement the requirements of the Habitats Directive in England, Scotland and Wales. It is an offence for anyone without a license to:

• Intentionally or recklessly/deliberately injure, take or kill a bat; • To possess a bat (unless obtained legally) whether alive or dead; • Intentionally or recklessly/deliberately damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that bats use

for shelter or protection whether bats are present or not; • Intentionally or recklessly/deliberately disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it

uses for shelter or protection. • deliberately disturb bats in such a way as to be likely significantly to affect—

(i) the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young; or (ii) the local distribution or abundance of that species;

Prosecution could result in imprisonment, fines per animal affected and confiscation of vehicles and equipment used. Exemptions can be granted from the protection afforded to bats under the Habitat Regulations, by means of an EPS (European Protected Species) Habitats Regulations licence obtained from Scottish Natural Heritage. An ‘EPS Habitats Regulations Licence’ could be required for:

• Removal of trees known to be used by bats as well as tree pruning



• Significant alterations to roof voids known to be used by bats • Road building or widening • Bridge strengthening

There are three tests, which must be satisfied, before a licence can be issued to permit otherwise prohibited acts;

• Regulation 44(2)(e), for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; or 44 (2)(f) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease; or 44(2)(g) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other forms of property or to fisheries; subject to Scottish Natural Heritage being satisfied that the application additionally meets:

• Regulation 44(3)(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative; and • Regulation 44(3)(b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the

species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. A European Protected Species Licence is required before the commencement of any development that requires one due to its impact on bats or their roosts.



B Survey and site assessment

B.1 Pre‐existing information on the bat species at the survey site.

Within ca. 5km of the site there are five known records of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.) and a single record of brown long‐eared bats (Plecotus auritus) and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii)1. Natterer’s bats (Myotis nattereri) are known from the region and may also possibly be encountered. A winter survey found bat droppings in the roof void below gaps in sarking.

B.2 Status of species that may be encountered

B.2.1 Bats which may be roosting within the site and UK Status

Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus): Locally widespread and common. Nationally widespread and common. Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus): Locally widespread and common. Nationally widespread and common. Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii): Possibly locally widespread but rare. Possibly nationally widespread but rare. Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii): Locally widespread and common. Nationally widespread and common. Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri): Locally widespread but not common. Nationally widespread but not common. Brown long‐eared bat (Plecotus auritus): Locally widespread and common. Nationally widespread and common.

B.3 Objective(s) of survey

The survey set out to assess: a) what species of bat were present at the site; b) what types of bat roosts were found within the site; c) what population levels of bats (size and importance) were present or used roosts at the site.

B.4 Survey area description

The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless is a derelict dwelling in a deteriorating condition located 70m above sea level a kilometre north of Kirkton of Auchterless (OS LR: NJ 727426), in a rural Aberdeenshire setting down a farm track and part of a farmhouse, sheds, steading complex. It is less than a hundred metres from riparian broadleaved woodland along the River Ythan, otherwise it is surrounded by improved farmland. The Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat is a one and a half storey derelict farmhouse with stone walls and pitched slated hipped roof in poor condition (Figure 1‐4). There are two dormer windows to the front and a single central chimney breast. There is an accessible roof void with timbers boards and insulation exposed throughout. It is proposed to demolish the building which is in poor and deteriorating condition and new build on an adjacent site.



Figure 1. the Old Farmhouse from front Figure 2. Farmhouse from the rear

Figure 3. Internal loft space Figure 4. Farmhouse from the south

B.5 Field Survey

B.5.1 Methods

On the 16th of May 2016 the Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless was surveyed internally and externally for potential roost sites and signs of use by bats. The day survey utilised ladders, binoculars and high‐powered torches. The inspection of the buildings involved looking through the interior and around the exterior for bat droppings on the ground, stuck to walls or on tiles, door/window frames and recording suitable entry and exit points. The first evening emergence survey was carried out on the 16th of May 2016 to observe and record any emerging bats. A further dusk emergence survey took place on the evening of the 8th of June 2016 and a dawn return survey took place on the morning of the 24th of June 2016 in order to observe and record returning bats.

B.5.2 Timing

On 16th of May 2016 and the 8th of June 2016 dusk emergence surveys were carried out at the Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. On the 16th of May 2016 an internal and external survey of the buildings on site was carried out. On the 24th of June 2016 a dawn return survey was carried out.

B.5.3 Weather conditions

The temperature at the start of the dusk emergence surveys was 11°C and 12°C, and it was 12°C at the time of the dawn return survey. Cloud cover was 80% and 100% for the emergence surveys and 100% for the dawn return survey and there was no rain and wind speed was low throughout the survey periods. The weather conditions did not impede the surveys in any way.

B.5.4 Personnel

Work was carried out by a licensed bat worker (IM: Roost Conservation Licence 44706) with the assistance of an experienced ecological surveyor (AJB) with over two decades of combined experience surveying bats.



B.6 Results

B.6.1 Day Survey

Internal Signs of use by a bat or bats were observed in the internal roof void. A small number of bat droppings were observed on the floor of the loft with a further one or two droppings observed in spider web below a gap in the sarking near the chimney breast. These small accumulations of droppings are considered to have fallen through gaps in sarking to the loft floor below. From general size and shape the droppings are considered to have been produced by pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.). No bats were observed roosting and no droppings were observed anywhere else internally. External All external areas of the building were surveyed for physical evidence of use by bats. All external parts were accessible and inspected. No evidence of use by roosting bats or bat droppings were observed on or under any of the slates, ridge or pointing of the roof or any other external structure or in or around any external fixtures surveyed.

B.6.2 Dusk/Dawn Surveys

Dusk Emergence Two dusk emergence surveys were carried out to visually observe bats emerging from roost sites and if present confirm species identity with the use of a Pettersson D1000x bat detector and an Ultrasound Advice U30 bat detector and recorder. Surveyors positioned themselves so the site remained in the detection envelope of bat detectors at all times and bats emerging from all aspects would be observed or detected (See Species Protection Plan). Thirty minutes before sunset no social calls from roosting bats could be heard from any part of the built environment at the Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. The emergence surveys began 15 mins before sunset and continued for one and a half hours after sunset. On the 16th of May 2016 three pipistrelle bats, identified as Pipistrellus pipistrellus by the peak frequency of echolocation calls recorded, emerged from an area of raised slates near the chimney breast and from under the guttering (See Species Protection Plan). On the 8th of June three pipistrelle bats, again identified as Pipistrellus pipistrellus by the peak frequency of echolocation calls, emerged from the same locations. Dawn Return On the morning of the 24th of June a dawn return survey was carried out to visually observe bats returning to roost sites and if present confirm species identity. The dawn return survey began one and a half hours before sunrise and continued until sunrise or ten minutes after the last bat returned. Two pipistrelle bats were observed to land and access roost sites by way of a raised area of slate near the chimney breast and under the guttering of the Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless (See Species Protection Plan). Bat activity around the building was low with infrequent bat passes, other than when bats emerged from and returned to roost.

B.7 Interpretation and evaluation of survey results

B.7.1 Presence/absence

The survey observed and recorded bats using roosts at Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. The location of the roost access sites is restricted to areas of raised slates near the chimney breast and behind guttering (See Species Protection Plan). No bats or signs of bats were observed or recorded at any other part of the built environment at Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless.

B.7.2 Site status assessment (combining quantitative, qualitative, functional and contextual factors)

A low number (3 individuals maximum count) of Pipistrellus pipistrellus bats use the old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless as a roost site. There was little indication that the bats observed use any internal space in the roof void as a roost rather that the space between slates and sarking and sarking and masonry at wall head is used. It is therefore likely that a low number of non‐reproductive female or male bats use the sites identified as a day roost.



B.7.3 Constraints (factors influencing survey results)

There were few constraints to close inspection of the site and timing and weather conditions were acceptable for a roost characterisation survey as per BCT guidelines in order to provide the further information required to inform a licensing decision.

C Recommendations and Conclusions

C.1 Recommendations

The survey demonstrates that Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless is used as a roost site by low numbers of one species of bat. The bat species concerned is nationally widespread and common. The proposed development intends to demolish the existing built environment on site. If the old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless is demolished it will result in the destruction of Pipistrellus pipistrellus non‐maternity day roosts used by at least three bats.

All bats and bat roosts (places that bats use for shelter or protection) are protected under current legislation and therefore an EPS (European Protected Species) licence issued by Scottish Natural Heritage is required to destroy/disturb the existing roost site. No works that might disturb roost sites or roosting bats should be commenced until an EPS licence has been obtained. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) states that an indication of the time to process an application will be under 15 days from the date of receipt of all information based on recent turn around times. An application form and further details can be obtained from: Licensing Section, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NW.

If a licence to destroy the roost is pursued the following requirements are site‐specific taking into account the roost type and the status of the species at the local, regional and national level. If pursued with mitigation it is unlikely that the works would have a detrimental effect on the conservation status of the bat species concerned. If the period of time between this survey and commencement of development work extends to a further bats’ breeding season another survey to identify use of sites is recommended to ascertain any changes in bat usage before work commences. As bats change roosts regularly there presence at a different location on the site in the future cannot be completely ruled out. In the event that bats are encountered during other works, all works should cease and Scottish Natural Heritage or a licensed ecologist contacted.

C.2 Conclusions

• A low number of one common species of bat was found to roost on site and the roosting sites will be affected by the development.

• Appropriate mitigation and compensation, which should be provided as part of the proposed demolition, would allow the works to proceed without a detrimental effect on local bat populations.

• An EPS licence will be required to carry out works.

D References Bat Records for Scotland 1970‐2007. Scottish Natural Heritage1. Harris, S. & Yalden, D. 2008. Mammals of the British Isles. 4th Edition. The Mammal Society. Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines. 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Mitchell‐Jones, A. J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.


Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless

KeepersLickleyhead

Premnay, Insch Aberdeenshire

Tel: 07557852369 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.blackhillecology.co.uk

CONFIDENTIAL SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN THE OLD FARMHOUSE AT CHAPEL OF SEGGAT, AUCHTERLESS ‐ METHOD STATEMENT (BATS) (to be read in conjunction with Bat Survey Report: The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. Black Hill Ecology) The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless Date: July 2016 Client: Aberdeen Endowment Trust Site: The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless

Black Hill Ecology has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, Aberdeen Endowment Trust, for its sole and

specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. This report was prepared by an environmental specialist and does not purport to constitute legal advice.

© Black Hill Ecology 2016

1

98

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.blackhillecology.co.uk/


A Mitigation and compensation

A.1 Summary of situation and mitigation strategy

Black Hill Ecology was commissioned by Aberdeen Endowment Trust to provide expert advice relating to bats at the Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless where demolition and new build is proposed. A roost characterisation survey carried out by a team of ecological surveyors including licensed bat surveyor (Dr Iain Mackie; Roost Conservation Licence 44706) with the assistance of experienced ecological surveyor (A. Joyce Brereton) identified common pipistrelle (Figure 2) bat roosts at wall head and under ridge tiles on the steading (Bat Survey Report: The Old Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat, Auchterless. Black Hill Ecology). It is proposed to compensate for the loss of roost sites by providing discreet purpose built compensation roosts on walls (Figure 1, 3). The development has a purpose, is imperative and there is no alternative. Mitigation Strategy

• To maintain an equivalent population of the species at a favourable conservation status within their natural range bats will be permitted access to purpose built compensation roosts (Figure 1, 3).

• Work will be timed to avoid the possibility of disturbing hibernating bats. Specifically, no work affecting roosts will take place between 1st December and 28th February.

• The removal of slates and ridge within 5m of roost sites will be supervised by a licensed ecologist. • Workers/contractors will be given a short induction on bat presence and the law and a copy of the

Method Statement associated with the licence will be provided. • Only Low level lighting will be used on site around the roost. External and internal lighting of the roofs

containing bat roosts, as well as gable walls and eaves, will be avoided. • Timber treatments toxic to mammals will be avoided. • The roost site will be monitoring for a period of 1 year to establish whether the bats have responded

favourably to the mitigation.

Compensation Roost

Figure 1. Plan of the Olds Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat site and location of surveyors (blue circles), compensation roosts (red circles) and location of roosts (blue arrows) (Original courtesy of John Wink Design).

2

99


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

• Providing an induction to builders and contractors to make them aware of the possible presence of bats, their legal protection and of working practices to avoid harming bats. A copy of the Method Statement will remain available on site at all times.

• Overseeing removal of roofing materials and supervision of other work potentially affecting bats.

• The capture of any bats (if necessary) with removal to the bat boxes. • Advice to the developer regarding proper positioning and construction of the compensation

roosts and new access points for bats. • Inspection of completed roost sites for bats to ensure that they are suitable for the

requirements of the species. • Guidance on monitoring of modified/new roosts.

B.1 Bat Capture/Handling Issues

• Two 2FE Schwegler Wall‐Mounted bat box will be fixed to walls located near the roost site.

This will provide compensation roosts for bats using the old Farmhouse as the roof is removed. The bat boxes will remain on site permanently.

• During removal of roof slates and other roofing material any bats discovered will be moved by hand (by the licensed ecologist) to the compensation roosts. Any injured bats, or bats that have come out of torpor as a result of handling, will be taken into care by a qualified bat worker and fed until they are able to be released at the site during favourable weather conditions. Once the ecologist is satisfied that there are no bats roosting within the buildings work will continue. The ecologist will wear bite protective gloves to handle bats at all times.

• If bats are discovered at other, unsupervised times, work will cease immediately and the licensee or accredited agent will be called for advice. The licensee or accredited agent will either advise that the bat is left to disperse of its own accord or that the contractors wait until the licensed bat handler is available to move the bat. Builders and contractors are explicitly forbidden from handling bats.

C Works to be undertaken by the Developer/Landowner.

C.1 Bat roosts

C.1.1 New compensation roost creation

Compensation Roosts

• Two bat boxes (Schwegler model 2FE) will be fixed walls on site (Figure 1, 3). Other mitigation measures

• The developer will liaise with the ecologist to ensure that the design and implementation of the mitigation is carried out correctly.

• Timber treatments that are toxic to mammals will be avoided. Pre‐treated timber will only use the CCA (copper, chrome, arsenic) treatment and chemicals used for timber treatment will be based on permethrin and cypermethrin compounds.

3

100


• Lighting within the site boundary will take bats into consideration and will be low level high pressure sodium with UV filters and directional shrouding/shields to prevent unnecessary light spill. Lighting above the top of the ground floor level will be avoided.

Figure 2. Echolocation calls of Pipistrellus pipistrellus Figure 3. Wall mounted bat box emerging from Farmhouse at Chapel of Seggat

D Timetable of works and Post‐development site safeguard

D.1 Timetable and Population monitoring

A timetable for works involving the roof works will be followed (Table A) and the population of bats utilising the roost site should be monitored. Monitoring should consist of an emergence count of roosts from ground level (Table B).

Table A. Timetable of works activities A: Works activities and timing Activity Timing Notes Compensation roost erected Prior to roost

destruction This work will not directly affect the existing roost site

Roosts dismantled Not during December to February inclusive

supervised by licensed ecologist. In accordance with above.

Initial post works monitoring inspection of roost site

Following August

Table B. Post works monitoring timetable B: Post works monitoring Year Following

roost destruction

Details Carried out in late August. Emergence count and inspection site.

4

101