The ISAAC Centre, Burnley - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 11 - … · preliminary bat roost survey. Breeding and wintering bird survey. Extensive experience in great crested newt

PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

THE ISAAC CENTRE

HARROGATE CRESCENT BURNLEY

LANCASHIRE


THE ISAAC CENTRE HARROGATE CRESCENT

BURNLEY LANCASHIRE

A report for

Lancashire County Council (Estates) PO Box 26, County Hall

Preston PR1 8RE

Report authors

PENNINE Ecological 1 Moss Cottage

North Road Bretherton Nr Leyland Lancashire PR26 9AY

Tel. (01772) 600441

email: [email protected] web: www.pennineecological.co.uk

Ian Ryding

November 2019


THE ISAAC CENTRE HARROGATE CRESCENT

BURNLEY LANCASHIRE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS PAGE NO. PART 1 INTRODUCTION: 1.1 Reasons for Survey 1 1.2 Site Location 1 1.3 Survey Methodology 1 1.4 Survey Constraints 2 PART 2 SURVEY RESULTS: 2.1 Executive Summary 3 2.2 Desk Based Study 3 2.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 4 2.4 Preliminary Bat Roost Evaluation 11 2.5 Badger Survey 21

2.6 Evaluation of Other Features 21

PART 3 SUMMARY EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: 3.1 Summary Evaluation of Findings 24 3.2 Recommendations 26 REFERENCES: APPENDIX: Map 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map Map 2: Preliminary Bat Roost Survey – Location of all Buildings and Tree Groups. Map 3: Preliminary Bat Roost Survey – Buildings B1 and B2

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal The ISAAC Centre, Harrogate Crescent, Burnley, Lancashire.

PENNINE Ecological 1

PART 1: INTRODUCTION: 1.1 REASONS FOR SURVEY: PENNINE Ecological have been commissioned by Lancashire County Council Estates, to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the former ISAAC Centre, Harrogate Crescent, Burnley, Lancashire. The study is required in association with a future proposal to develop the site following the closure of the centre. The study includes the following elements: • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. • Preliminary Bat Roost Evaluation.

• Badger Survey. • Breeding Bird Evaluation.

The study also includes a full evaluation of the ecological significance of the survey and recommendations/precautions where appropriate. The surveys were undertaken by Ian Ryding a surveyor with over 32 years experience in a wide range of ecological surveys and assessment. 1.2 SITE LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of Harrogate Crescent, Burnley, Lancashire, BB10 2NX. Central grid reference SD 8558 3474. The location of the study area is shown on Map 1 in the Appendix. 1.3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY: The methodologies where specific surveys were applied are outlined below. 1.3.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey:

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Nature Conservancy Council 1990) of the survey area was undertaken on the 23rd October 2019. The site’s habitats were fully mapped and higher vascular plant species (where present) were recorded and given abundance values according to the standard DAFOR scale where: D = Dominant A = Abundant F = Frequent O = Occasional R = Rare Where appropriate the above values can be prefixed by the letter L (locally) or V (very), to provide more subtle biogeographical data.



1.3.2 Preliminary Bat Roost Evaluation: The preliminary bat roost survey was undertaken on the 23rd October 2019 following the methodology outlined in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) Collins, J. Bat Conservation Trust (2016) The surveys included non-intrusive surveys of the trees and buildings on the site in order to evaluate their bat roost potential. The surveys were undertaken by an experienced preliminary assessor of bat roost potential, in consultation with a Level 2 licenced bat ecologist. 1.3.3 Other Species: During the survey, observations relating to the potential presence of badger, breeding birds and great crested newt were also undertaken and evaluated as part of this study. 1.3.4 Surveyor Experience: The surveyor and author of this report, Ian Ryding, has over 32 years experience in ecological survey and evaluation. Key skills include the following.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey/Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and National Vegetation Classification Survey.

Highly proficient field botanist, including some difficult plant groups.

Mammal surveys including surveys for badger, water vole*, otter*, brown hare and

preliminary bat roost survey.

Breeding and wintering bird survey.

Extensive experience in great crested newt (GCN) survey, evaluation, licensing and mitigation. Natural England Class Licence WML-CL08 held.

Ecological Evaluation and Impact Assessments in association with large scale

commercial development and civil engineering.

Proof of evidence in respect of nesting birds at public inquiry. *Over 250km of river reaches surveyed in England. 1.4 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS: The preliminary bat survey of the main school building was partially constrained by parts of the roof not being visible from ground-level due to the presence of locked gates. The constraints overall are considered to be minor. All other surveys were undertaken during the appropriate season or could be reasonably evaluated and there were no other constraints to survey.



PART 2 SURVEY RESULTS: 2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The site has no statutory or non-statutory designations.

There are no SSSIs within 2km.

The nearest statutory site is the South Pennine Moors SSSI, SAC and SPA which is located 3.6km east of the site and is isolated by extensive residential development.

There are no Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) within 500m of the site.

The habitats affected by the proposal are of 'site' value only and are composed of the

former school buildings and formal grounds.

There are no S41* habitats on the site.

House sparrow is a S41* species and historical evidence of nesting was observed on the site.

There is a small artificial on-site pond, but no other ponds within 800m of the site, which is isolated by being enclosed by residential development and busy roads. Impacts on GCN are not predicted.

Building B1 has ‘moderate’ bat roost potential and internal inspection as well as

dusk/dawn surveys are needed.

Building B2 and B3 and all of the tree groups on the site (TG1 – TG9) have ‘negligible’ bat roost potential and no further surveys are required.

The few tree-lines on the site provide minor bat foraging/commuting habitat.

Nesting bird habitat on the site is restricted to the trees/shrubs and potentially within B1

where evidence of house sparrow nesting was found. Based on the range of birds observed during the survey in relation to the habitat present, nesting bird interest is considered to be of ‘local’ i.e. Parish value.

New nesting habitat is required to mitigate the loss of nest sites on the site.

None of the records generated by the data search relate to the site.

The survey revealed no evidence of use of the site by badger.

*Section 41 – Habitats and Species of Principle Importance in England (NERC Act 2006). 2.2 DESK BASED STUDY: Given the site’s location and that the habitats affected are of ‘site’ value only, a data search from Lancashire Environmental Record Network (LERN) was not undertaken. The lack of LERN data is not considered to have significantly constrained the evaluation of the site, as given its location and general nature, the likelihood of relevant data being generated by the search is considered to be very low.



However, if required, the LERN data for the site will be obtained to inform the bat emergence surveys and any licence application to Natural England that may be required in respect of any future development of the site. Whilst the LERN data search was not commissioned, the Multi Agency Geographical Information Centre www.magic.gov.uk was referred to in respect of statutory sites that are known to be present locally. The NBN Atlas was referred to for species records within 2km. Reference to the MAGIC data revealed the following information in respect of statutory sites.

There are no SSSI/SPA/SACs within 2km of the site.

South Pennine Moors SSSI, SAC and SPA which is located 3.6km east of the site and is isolated by extensive residential development.

The study area has no BHS designation and none of the habitats/species qualify for BHS status under the various guidelines for selection. There are no known BHSs within 500m of the site.

The NBN Atlas revealed the following protected and invasive species information within 250m (approx.).

Goldcrest – a single record (2013) 190m south-west of the site. (Source – BTO + partners).

In addition to the above, data generated by the Big Garden Birdwatch Winter Sightings in the UK 2019, recorded the following species within OS grid square SD8534. Starling, song thrush, mistle thrush, blackbird, dunnock, robin house sparrow, blackcap, greenfinch, chaffinch, goldfinch, blue tit, great tit, coal tit, long-tailed tit, jackdaw, jay, magpie, carrion crow, herring gull, woodpigeon, feral pigeon, stock dove and collared dove. (Source RSPB and BTO + Partners). It should be noted that no bat records were returned within 500m of the site. 2.3 PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY: 2.3.1 General Description: The study area is composed of a former school that sits in its own grounds that are largely composed of playing fields with smaller areas of hardstanding and formal garden areas that have now become rank. Several small and semi-mature trees and shrubs are present, and a small storage building is located in the north-east corner of the site. The site is enclosed by housing and roads on all sides.



2.3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes: Survey locations, Target Notes and the proposed working area locations are shown on Map 1 in the Appendix. Note: All species nomenclature follows Stace, C. (1996) ‘New Flora of the British Isles’ - definitive English names. Target Note 1: An area of amenity grassland that once formed the playing field for the school. The grassland might possibly be still maintained by mowing but at a lower frequency than would have occurred when the school was operational. Perennial rye-grass and meadow-grass spp, dominate the sward, with abundant Yorkshire-fog, red fescue and creeping buttercup, and very locally abundant daisy and dandelion sp. Common sorrel and dock spp. are very locally frequent. There are numerous planted broad-leaved trees around the edges of the playing field, and occasionally in its centre. None have any significant age, and none pre-date the school, with the oldest being semi-mature. Species recorded include alder, ash, apple, Norway maple, silver birch, cherry and willow species. Target Note 2: A steeply sloping semi-improved poor grassland on the east side of the school building. The grassland is rank and dominated by cock’s-foot and red fescue, with abundant dandelion sp., and very locally abundant curled dock, creeping bent, hairy sedge and Yorkshire-fog. Great willowherb is very locally frequent, and common sorrel, common ragwort and ribwort plantain occasional. Target Note 3: A landscaped area at the back of the school building. Much of this area is composed of paths and hard surfaces but there is also a small patch of semi-improved poor grassland dominated by common bent and Yorkshire-fog. Bramble is colonising here. Stands of ornamental garden shrubs including cotoneaster, spirea, Japanese rose and cherry sp. are also present in this area. Small osier and silver birch also feature. Target Note 4: A small pond situated within a dense stand of mixed non-native and native planting. The pond was possibly created for educational purposes and is shallow, butyl-lined and covered by a heavy-duty steel grill. Pond vegetation is restricted to a thick surface cover of ivy-leaved duckweed. The pond is heavily shaded by the surrounding small trees and shrubs that include shrubby cinquefoil, cotoneaster, hazel, bay willow, Italian alder, silver birch, spruce sp. and cherry sp. Bramble is occasional.



Very occasional elder and ornamental shrubs are present and include dogwood and cotoneaster varieties. The ground flora includes locally dominant pendulous sedge and occasional wood avens. There is no obvious classification for this habitat in the Phase 1, however, given the predominance of small trees, the area is mapped as planted woodland. Photographs showing the general conditions on site are provided below. Site Photographs - Habitats:

Photograph 1: Typical view of the school playing field and boundary trees described in Target Note 1.

Photograph 2: Typical view of the school playing field and boundary trees described in Target Note 1.



Photograph 3: Typical view of the school playing field and scattered trees described in Target Note 1.

Photograph 4: Sloping semi-improved poor grassland. (See TN 2)

Photograph 5: The landscaped area at the back of the school. (See TN 3)



Photograph 6: The landscaped area at the back of the school. (See TN 3)

Photograph 7: The pond in the landscaped area described in Target Note 4.

Photograph 8: The stand of planted trees/shrubs surrounding the pond described in Target Note 4.



Photograph 9: General view of the school grounds.









2.4 PRELIMINARY BAT ROOST EVALUATION: The preliminary bat roost survey was undertaken on the 23rd October 2019 following the methodology outlined in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) Collins, J. Bat Conservation Trust (2016) The surveys included non-intrusive surveys of the buildings and trees on the site in order to evaluate their bat roost potential. The buildings surveyed include the former school building (B1), the service building (B2) and the storage building/garage (B3) on the playing field. The inspection was external and from ground-level only. No bat droppings or feeding remains were found on the outside of the building or trees. 2.4.1 Buildings: The School Building (B1): This is a long irregular-shaped building typically composed of a tall assembly hall/gym, dining room and kitchen, and classrooms and offices. The building dates approximately from the early 1960s or possibly late 1950s and is constructed from brick with cavity walls. The roof is mainly pitched with some areas flat and is bitumen felted throughout. The building doesn’t appear to have any typical loft spaces, however, there are void spaces between the ceilings and the roof. Timber soffits also feature around most of the roof’s structure. Part of the school is residentially occupied as a site security measure. Services Building (B2): This is a detached services/utilities building off the front elevation of the school building. The walls are of brick construction and have a cavity. The roof is formed by flat concrete panels and there are no fascia boards or soffits. There is no means of ingress for bats, and no external features suitable for roosting bats. Storage Building (B3): A typical prefabricated garage of concrete construction with a flat corrugated steel roof. The concrete panel walls are pebble-dashed externally, and there are UPVC fascia boards present with wide/open gaps. Key Features: School Building (B1): Front Elevation (North):

Numerous rot holes in the timber soffits.



West elevation:

Several rot holes in the timber soffits. Rear Elevation (East):

Numerous rot holes in the timber soffits. East Elevation:

Several rot holes in the timber soffits. Based on the features present in B1, bat roost potential is ‘moderate’. Services Building (B2): This building has no features suitable for roosting bats and roost potential is ‘negligible’. Storage Building (B3):

Wide gaps behind UPVC fascia board on south elevation. Based on the features present in B2, bat roost potential is ‘negligible’. 2.4.2 Trees: There are numerous planted trees and shrubs on the site, most of which are planted around its perimeter. The trees are separated into tree groups (TG) and are individually described below. TG1: A group containing several semi-mature ash, a single rowan, silver birch and cherry sp., and several non-native ornamental shrubs and small trees. None of the trees have holes or fissures suitable for roosting bats and roost potential is ‘negligible’. TG2: Several semi-mature – early-mature alder and a single Norway maple on the south and east boundary. All of the trees are fairly even-aged and have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats. Roost potential in this group is therefore ‘negligible’. TG3: This group contains two mature crab apple, a semi-mature ash and rowan, and several mature ornamental (non-native) trees. The trees have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats, and roost potential in this group is ‘negligible’.



TG4: Two semi-mature – early-mature sessile oak. None of the trees have holes or fissures suitable for roosting bats and roost potential in TG4 is ‘negligible’. TG5: A mature cherry var. and immature rowan. The trees have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats, and roost potential is ‘negligible’. TG6: A dense stand of mixed immature hazel, bay willow, Italian alder, silver birch, spruce sp. and cherry sp. Small spindly shrubs are also present. All of the trees are even-aged, the trees have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats, and roost potential in this group is ‘negligible’. TG7: A line of several trees including silver birch, Italian alder, alder and an unidentified ornamental species. The trees are semi-mature – early mature and have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats, and roost potential in this group is ‘negligible’. TG8: A group of small immature trees including pedunculate oak, silver birch, hornbeam, hawthorn and willow sp. The trees have no holes of fissures suitable for roosting bats, and roost potential in this group is ‘negligible’. TG9: Two immature – semi-mature goat willow with no holes and fissures suitable for roosting bats. Bat roost potential in this group is ‘negligible’. Photographs showing general and key features of the buildings and trees on site are provided below.



Site Photographs – Bats:

Photograph 14: Front (north) elevation of B1. Rot hole in soffit.

Photograph 15: West elevation of B1. Gap behind soffit.

Photograph 16: North elevation of B1. Rot hole in soffit.



Photograph 17: West elevation of the B1. Rot holes in soffit.

Photograph 18: West elevation of B1. Rot hole in soffit.

Photograph 19: Wing projecting off the south elevation of B1. Rot holes in soffit.



Photograph 20: West elevation of B2, showing typical construction.

Photograph 21: Typical view of B3, simple prefabricated construction.

Photograph 22: B3 – typically wide gap between panel wall and UPVC fascia board.



Photograph 23: Typical example of the trees within TG1. Northern boundary.

Photograph 24: Typical example of the trees within TG1.

Photograph 25: Typical example of the trees within TG2. Southern boundary.



Photograph 26: Typical example of the trees within TG2. The two trees in TG4 in background to right.

Photograph 27: Typical example of the trees within TG3, one of the trees in in TG4 on right. West boundary.

Photograph 28: The cherry, the largest of the two trees in TG5 by the car park.



Photograph 29: The stand of immature trees in TG6.

Photograph 30: Typical example of the trees within TG7. Northern boundary.

Photograph 31: Typical example of the trees within TG7. (Right side only).



Photograph 32: Typical view of the trees within TG8.

Photograph 33: Typical view of the goat willow in TG9.



2.5 BADGER SURVEY: As the site is located entirely within a residential area, the badger survey focused on land within the site boundary only. The survey used standard techniques for establishing the use of the site by badger, and included searches for evidence of badgers including:

Setts Pathways Footprints Latrines Foraging areas Scratching posts

The survey results are outlined below. Sett Search: The survey found no setts on the site. Search for Foraging Signs: The site was thoroughly searched for badger pathways or signs of foraging. No sign of badger foraging activity was found therefore it can be concluded that the species is not using this area for foraging. Boundary Search: The boundaries of the site were walked and examined for potential runs, pathways and latrines. The search revealed an absence of any runs that might possibly be attributed to badger around any of the boundaries. The search found no evidence of badger latrines on any boundaries, therefore the absence of latrines indicates a lack of territorial activity in the near vicinity of the site. Survey Conclusions: The survey found no evidence of historic, recent or current use of the site by badgers for foraging, commuting or occupation. 2.6 EVALUATION OF OTHER FEATURES: 2.6.1 Breeding Birds: The study area is composed of what were once the formal grounds of a school and typically comprises open playing fields as well as several planted broad-leaved trees and ornamental shrubs. It was too late in the year to undertake a formal bird survey, and a simple ‘look and see’ survey was undertaken to record all species seen/heard on the site. The list of species recorded is presented below.



Woodpigeon Magpie Blackbird House sparrow The list of birds recorded is reasonably representative of the range of species that would occur on a site of this type. A few more common species might be expected to be recorded if a breeding bird survey had been undertaken, nevertheless the species recorded are very typical of such habitats in an urban location. There is very little nesting habitat on the site, with breeding sites largely restricted to the trees and shrubs. However, evidence of the historical use of B1 as a nest site by house sparrow was also noted. Based on the range of habitats present, the site is only capable of supporting low numbers of nesting birds that do not exceed ‘local’ interest i.e. of Parish value. 2.6.2 Great Crested Newt: A single artificial pond was found to be present on the site and located within a small/dense stand of planted trees on the west side of the school building. (See Photograph 7 and TN 4). The pond is approximately 9m² in extent and 0.5m deep. The pond has a butyl liner and has no aquatic/emergent vegetation other than ivy-leaved duckweed which is dominant. The pond was possibly created for educational purposes, for example pond dipping, or possibly formed part of a small nature conservation project, and is covered by a heavy steel grill. The scoping survey made reference to current and historical Ordnance Survey data, as well as current online aerial images, which confirmed that there are no off-site ponds within 800m of the site. In addition the site is isolated from all waterbodies by major barrier effects imposed by extensive residential areas and roads. To aid evaluation, the pond was subject to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Survey which is presented below. HSI Survey Table:

Pond ref On-site pond Comments

SI1 - Location 1 Pond in optimum geographical location

SI2 - Pond area 0.01 Very small butyl-lined pond. School dipping/habitat creation project.

SI3 - Pond drying 0.9 The pond is <0.5m deep and never dries out..

SI4 - Water quality 0.33 Water quality is poor, highly eutrophic and no aquatic invertebrates were recorded

SI4 - Shade 0.2 The pond is heavily/completely shaded by dense bankside trees and shrubs.

SI6 - Fowl 1 No evidence of waterfowl impacts.

SI7 - Fish 0.67 No evidence of fish but sticklebacks possibly present.

SI8 - Ponds 0.9 3 ponds within 1km, all isolated from site by major barrier effects.

SI9 - Terr'l habitat 0.01 The pond is surrounded by hardstanding with limited amounts of short amenity grassland.

SI10 - Macrophytes 0.8 Ivy leaved duckweed only present.

HSI 0.28 HSI category - poor



Categorisation of HSI scores HSI Pond suitability <0.5 = poor 0.5 – 0.59 = below average 0.6 – 0.69 = average 0.7 – 0.79 = good > 0.8 = excellent The HSI score for the on-site pond is 0.28, which rates as being at the lower end of ‘poor’ in the HSI. Conclusions: The results of the HSI, consideration of other influencing factors and the surveyors specialist knowledge of the species* and its requirements, are combined to determine the likelihood of GCN presence in the pond. These factors are outlined in the points below.

The HSI returned a score of (very) 'poor' in the suitability rating for GCN in the on-site pond.

All off-site ponds are >800m from the site and there are major barrier effects imposed by

extensive residential and industrial development and busy roads.

The on-site pond is artificial and of relatively recent origin, and there is no reasonable means of natural colonisation of GCN from any off-site ponds.

Based on the above, the likelihood of GCN presence in the pond is considered to be remote, therefore there are no GCN issues associated with the site. *It should be noted that the surveyor and author of this report has extensive knowledge of the nearest GCN population to the site, and has been the project ecologist on three developments associated with that population.



PART 3 SUMMARY EVAULATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: 3.1 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF FINDINGS: The following section discusses the significance of the survey findings. It should be noted that this part of the evaluation relates to habitats and species and includes reference to the following statutory/non-statutory instruments.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and later amendments), with particular reference to protected species listed in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the above act.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Section 41 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England. Natural

Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Reference to any relevant Red Data List/Book species and Nationally Scarce species not covered by the above or any other lists / schedules of species rarity or importance.

Use of the Biological Heritage Site Guidelines for Site Selection (LCC, LWT 1998) has

been made. This document is an invaluable tool for assessing the significance of species / habitats in Lancashire, since it sets out the minimum ecological requirements for species/habitats to be selected as a Biological Heritage Site. Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) are by definition considered to be of Lancashire County significance for their ecological interest. By implication, sites that fail to meet these guidelines would not be of County ecological significance, but may be of significance at a more local scale e.g. Borough / Parish etc. The use of this method of site evaluation is in effect application of the Ratcliffe (1977) Criteria at a more specific local County level.

The evaluation is based on the commissioned surveys and desk study only. The following statements are relevant in respect of the above. 3.1.1 Statutory Sites: The site has no statutory designation and there are no SSSI/SPA/SACs within 2km. The nearest statutory site is the South Pennine Moors SSSI, SAC and SPA which is located 3.6km east of the site and is isolated by extensive residential development. 3.1.2 Biological Heritage Sites: The study area has no BHS designation and none of the habitats/species qualify for BHS status under the various guidelines for selection. There are no known BHSs within 500m of the site. 3.1.3 Section 41 NERC Act 2006 Habitats & Species: These are Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity in England under Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. There are no S41 habitats associated with the proposal site.



Evidence of use of the building by house sparrow was noted during the survey, and house sparrow is a S41 species. 3.1.4 Nationally Scarce/County Red Data List Species: There are no Nationally Scarce/County Red Data list plant species on the site. In addition to the above, the field survey and evaluation of the site revealed the following information. 3.1.5 Vegetation/habitats: The site is largely composed of amenity grassland in the form of school playing fields. There are small areas of neglected/rank garden areas, and several planted trees and ornamental shrubs also present. None of the trees are mature specimens. Small areas of semi-improved poor grassland also occur. Collectively the habitats on the site are of ‘site’ ecological value. 3.1.6 Great Crested Newt: The HSI survey and evaluation of GCN issues at the site concluded that the likelihood of GCN presence in the on-site pond is considered to be remote, therefore there is no reasonable risk of impacting upon GCN or its habitat. The scoping survey also confirmed that there are no ponds within 800m of the site, therefore there are no impacts on GCN populations off-site. 3.1.7 Bats: The survey conclusively shows that there is bat potential in the school building (B1). B1 has ‘moderate’ bat roost potential. B2 has ‘‘negligible’ bat roost potential. B3 has ‘‘negligible’ bat roost potential. The survey of the trees revealed that all of the tree groups (TG) have ‘negligible’ bat roost potential. The locations of the buildings and trees surveyed are shown on Maps 2 and 3 in the appendix. In regard to foraging, the site provides minor foraging potential only and is not considered to have high importance to local bat populations. 3.1.8 Badger: The survey found no evidence of historic, recent or current use of the site by badgers for foraging, commuting or occupation.



3.1.9 Breeding Birds: The area of land affected by the proposal is mostly composed of the open amenity grasslands of the former playing fields. Several broad-leaved trees and ornamental shrubs are present but are localised and relatively formal. A breeding bird survey wasn’t undertaken but all species observed/heard on site were recorded, and the site evaluated in respect of those species and the type of habitat present. A total of four species were recorded on site and the site contains suitable breeding habitat for all of those species. The list of birds recorded is reasonably representative of the range of species that would occur on a site of this type. A few more common species might be expected to be recorded if a breeding bird survey had been undertaken, nevertheless the species present are very typical of such habitats in a residential/urban location. Assuming the birds are breeding on the site, then collectively the birds are considered to be of ‘local’ interest i.e. of Parish value. 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The following section outlines any mitigation or precautions required in respect of the survey findings. 3.2.1 Vegetation/Habitats: All trees and native shrubs should be retained and protected wherever possible. Losses of trees and native shrubs should be compensated by the provision of new native planting. 3.2.2 Bats: The following inspections are required. School Building (B1): ‘Moderate’ roost potential was identified in B1, therefore dusk/dawn surveys are required in relation to B1. The dusk/dawn surveys must be undertaken between May – August inclusive, and will require at least two visits. Common pipistrelle often use buildings of this type, therefore if bats are found to be using B1 then a third visit might be required to provide a clearer picture of the building’s value as a roost. The decision whether or not to undertake a third visit will be made by the bat ecologist following the second visit. In addition to the emergence survey, any internal roof void spaces, if accessible, will also be inspected by the bat ecologist.



See Tables 4.1 and 7.1 from the BCT Guidelines below have been used to guide the appropriate level of surveys at the site.



Bat Licensing: Where bats and/or their roost are adversely affected by development, then a NE licence to derogate from the Regulations is required. The licence can only be granted if it can be shown that the population affected will be maintained at a favourable level. As the current status of bats in B1 isn’t currently known, the results of the bat survey as recommended above will determine if there is a requirement for a NE licence, and will inform the level of appropriate mitigation to obtain the licence and offset the impacts of any site proposals. Bat Foraging: It is recommended that all trees and native shrubs should be retained and protected wherever possible. Losses of trees and native shrubs should be compensated by the provision of new native planting. 3.2.3 Birds: Given that there is potential for nesting birds in the trees and shrubs on the site, it is advised that any site clearance, including the demolition of buildings (excluding B2), is undertaken outside of the bird nesting season which is March-August inclusive. Therefore trees/shrubs and buildings should only be removed between September-February to avoid impacting on nesting birds. If this isn't possible, then the vegetation and buildings must be checked by a suitably experienced ecologist prior to removal. To compensate for the loss of nest sites, native trees and shrubs should be planted on site as part of the new landscaping scheme. House sparrow boxes should also be installed in at least 10 suitable locations on any buildings proposed for the site. The following specification is advised. Schwegler 1SP or Vivara Pro Woodstone House Sparrow Nest Box as per 10% of buildings constructed. All nest boxes must be of ‘woodcrete’ or ‘woodstone’ construction, wooden nest boxes must not be installed due to their general lack of longevity. 3.2.4 Badger: Badger are absent on site and locally and no further surveys or precautions recommended. 3.2.5 Great Crested Newt: The survey and evaluation of GCN issues both on and off-site concluded that there is no reasonable risk to GCN or its habitat generated by developing the site. Therefore no further survey or precautions are required in respect of GCN.



REFERENCES: Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) Bat Conservation Trust. DEFRA (2006) Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 – Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England. DEFRA/Natural England English Nature (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature. English Nature, (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature. Gilbert G, Gibbons D.W. & Evans J. (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB et al. Lancashire County Planning Department, (1998) Biological Heritage Sites. Guidelines for Selection. Lancashire County Council Langton, T., Beckett, C., & Foster, J. (2001) Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife. Nature Conservancy Council (1990) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit. Nature Conservancy Council. Pyefinch, R. & Golborn, P. (2001) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Lancashire and North Merseyside 1997-2000. Lancashire Bird Club/Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Society. Rodwell et al. (1991) British Plant Communities Volume 1, Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press. Rodwell et al. (1992) British Plant Communities Volume 3, Grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J. S. (2006) National Vegetation Classification Users’ Handbook. JNCC. Roper, T. J, (2010) Badger. New Naturalist Library – Collins.

APPENDIX:

Map 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

Map 2: Preliminary Bat Roost Survey – Location of all Buildings and Tree Groups. Map 3: Preliminary Bat Roost Survey – Buildings B1 and B2

Documents

The ISAAC Centre, Burnley - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 11 - … · preliminary bat roost survey. Breeding and wintering bird survey. Extensive experience in great crested newt