Protected Species Walkover Report
Argyll and Bute Council · 2 June 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 2 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Project: 24_PEA_10_92 - CJ Site: Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK Client: Lorne Thomson This Report is the copyright of Woodland Solutions Northern Limited t/a ROAVR Group. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Page 2
Project Number: 24_PEA_10_92 - CJ Report Type: Site Walkover - Otters - Potential Roost Features Site Address: Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK Role: Name: Date: Client Lorne Thomson N/A Surveyor Connor S. Johnston 31/10/24 Consultant Connor S. Johnston Reviewer Revision History Date: Version number: Summary of changes: 31/10/24 1.0 First Draft 1.0 First Issue ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 3
Summary: Site Surveyed Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead National Grid Reference: NS 23668 91235 Purpose & Brief Protected species and PRA commissioned by Lorne Tomson Development Proposals The proposed development involves the construction of a house on the western boundary of the site on a patch of grassland Methods Otter and GLTA (Ground Level Tree Assessment) walkover Confirmed Ecological Constraints None Potential Ecological Constraints Roosting bats Recommendations For Further Survey Works CEMP implementation, Pre works check for otter signs Opportunities For Ecological Enhancements Bat boxes Removal of Invasive Species ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 4
Table of Contents Acknowledgements: Client Documents: 1 Introduction SITE DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SCOPE OF WORKS 2 Methodology DESKTOP STUDY Otters PRELIMINARY BAT ROOST ASSESSMENT (PRA) SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGATION LIMITATIONS 3 Policy and Legislative Context POLICY AND LEGISLATION NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 4 Desktop Study HISTORICAL SPECIES RECORDS 5 Site Survey Results 6 Evaluation and Assessment 8 Conclusions ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS MITIGATION STRATEGIES SUMMARY 9 References and Bibliography 10 Limitations Appendix 1: Site Location and Assessment Boundary ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 5
Acknowledgements: Data referred to within this report was sourced from the NBN Atlas. This resource is managed by the National Biodiversity Network and is designed to support environmental research, conservation, and decision-making. Client Documents: This report has been completed on the assumption that the plans provided by the client at the time of issue of this report remain the same. A list of the documents provided by the client can be found in the table below. Table: Documents provided by the client as of October 2024 Plans provided by the client as of 29/10/2024 2019_0057-03 1 Introduction 1.1 ROAVR Group were commissioned to undertake a Protected species walkover to determine the presence/absence of Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) and Otters at land near Glencairn Park, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AU, UK 1.2 The survey was comprised of a desktop study and site walkover 1.3 The methodology and results are outlined within the report where applicable. 1.4 The report is to be submitted to support a planning application to redevelop the site. 1.5 The information and recommendations within this report have been prepared and provided in accordance with CIEEM’s Code of Professional Conduct (CIEEM, 2022). ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 6
SITE DESCRIPTION 1.6 The survey site covers an area of approximately 2.2 hectares and is centred on ‘NS 23668 91235’. 1.7 The site is situated in Garelochhead in the Argyll and Bute Council control area. The site is located on the West side of the town and is accessed via the B872 road. 1.8 The site is currently a mixture of broadleaved woodland, species-poor neutral grassland, areas of bare ground and patches of scrub and bracken with the McAulay burn running through the centre of the site. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 1.9 The site is planned for redevelopment, with a house proposed for construction in the western portion over the species-poor grassland. Future plans may include the development of a car park in the northern section of the site, currently comprising bare ground. SCOPE OF WORKS 1.10 The aims of this assessment were to: - Identify the likely ecological constraints associated with the proposed development concerning otters and potential roosting features used by bats - Identify suitable mitigation measures (if required); - Determine whether further surveys are necessary 2 Methodology DESKTOP STUDY 2.1 Site-specific information concerning protected species and protected habitats within a 2km search area was sourced from NBN Atlas. 2.2 To ensure that ecological data searches were up to date, species data were screened and all data records pre-2014 were omitted from the results. 2.3 The results of the desktop study should be considered to be indicative only. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 7
Otters 2.4 The site walkover followed the standing advice from NatureScot. The site was surveyed including a systematic search for spraints, paw prints, paths, slides, food remains, holts and places of shelter. 2.5 The survey was conducted on foot. Habitats and features of importance were mapped using a GPS-enabled handset. PRELIMINARY BAT ROOST ASSESSMENT (PRA) 2.7 A Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, comprised of a preliminary ground level tree assessment (GLTA) undertaken by Connor Johnston during the site survey on 31/10/2024. The GLTA was undertaken in line with the Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023) using non-invasive methods. 2.8 The survey included an active search for bats, evidence of bats (such as droppings, feeding remains, urine splatters, oil staining, bat fur and/or scratch marks) and potential roosting features (PRFs). PRFs of trees are listed in Table 2.8.1. PRFs of built structures are listed in Table 2.8.2. The lists are not exhaustive but show examples of the most commonly used roosting features of built structures and trees. Table 2.8.1: Potential roosting features (PRFs) in built structures listed in Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023). Potential roosting features (PRFs) in built structures External Internal - Access/egress through windowsills, window panes and walls; - Behind peeling paintwork or lifted rendering; - Behind hanging tiles; - Weatherboarding; - Eaves; - Soffit boxes; - Fascias; - Lead flashing; - Gaps under felt (even including those of flats roofs); - Under tiles/slates; - Existing bat boxes; - Gaps in brickwork or stonework which provide access/egress to cavity or rubble-filled walls - Behind wooden panelling; - In lintels above doors and windows; - Behind window shutters and curtains; - Behind pictures, posters, furniture, peeling paintwork, peeling wallpaper, lifted plaster and boarded windows; - Inside cupboards and in chimneys accessible from fireplaces; - Within attic roof voids; - The top of gable end or dividing walls; - The top of chimney breasts; - Ridge and hip beams and other roof beams; - Mortise and tenon joints; - All beams; - The junction of roof timbers, especially where ridge and hip beams meet; - Behind purlins; - Between tiles and the roof lining; - Under flat felt roofs ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 8
Table 2.8.2: Potential roosting features (PRFs) in trees listed in Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2023) Table 6.6. Table 2.8.2. PRF types that can be exploited by bats and how they form (adapted from Bat Roosts in Trees, BTHK, 2018) reproduced from Table 6.6. (Collins, 2023.) PRFs formed by disease and decay PRFs formed by damage PRFs formed by association ● Woodpecker holes ● Squirrel holes ● Knot holes ● Pruning cuts ● Tear outs ● Wounds ● Cankers ● Compression forks ● Butt rots ● Lighting strikes ● Hazard beams ● Subsidence ● Cracks ● Shearing cracks ● Transverse snaps ● Welds ● Lifting bark ● Desiccation ● Fissures ● Frost cracks ● Fluting ● Ivy Table 2.8.3. Guidelines for assessing the suitability of trees on proposed development sites for bats, to be applied using professional judgement. Reproduced from Table 6.6. (Collins, 2023.) Suitability Description NONE Either no PRFs in the tree or highly unlikely to be any FAR Further assessment required to establish if PRFs are present in the tree PRF A tree with at least one PRF present 2.9 A Site Map was produced to show the location of built structures, trees and potential roosting features (PRFs) (Appendix 1 figure A1.1). ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 9
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 2.10 The likelihood of occurrence of protected ecological features and species was ranked following the criteria listed in Tables 2.10.1 and 2.10.2. Likelihood of occurrence was assessed using data collected during the desk study and after evaluation of the habitats on-site (during the site survey) as to their likelihood to provide suitability for protected species (i.e. presence of breeding, nesting, roosting, foraging, commuting and/or refuge habitat for example). Table 2.10.1: Criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence for protected ecological features and species on-site (excl. bats). Likelihood of occurrence Criteria Present Confirmed as present during the site survey or by confirmed historical records. High Species are known to be present within proximity to the site (records present). Habitats on-site are of high quality for the species and/or likely to support a large population. The site is well connected to good quality habitat within the local area. Moderate Species are known to be present within the local area (records present). Habitats on-site are of moderate quality for the species and/or likely to support a moderate population. The site and connected habitats provide all of the ecological requirements of the species. Suitability of habitats on-site may be limited due to disconnectivity to the wider landscape, poor to moderate habitat available within the wider locality, and/or due to the presence of only a small area of suitable habitat. Low Few or no records of the species within the local area. Habitats on-site are of poor quality for the species and/or likely to support just a few individuals. The suitability of habitats may be limited due to disturbance, isolation and/or poor quality habitat available within the wider locality. However, species presence cannot be discounted due to the national distribution of the species or the nature of on- site and surrounding habitats (if all required ecological requirements for the species are present). Negligible While presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species. Connected habitats do not fulfil the ecological requirements of the species. There are no local records and/or the site is outside the known national range of the species. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 10
Table 2.10.2: Criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence (site’s suitability) for bats, from Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Best Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2016). Suitability Criteria Roosting bats Foraging / Commuting bats Negligible Negligible habitat features on-site likely to be used by roosting bats. Negligible habitat features on-site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used regularly or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats but isolated ( i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat). Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of bats for foraging. Moderate A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only - with respect to roost type only). Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used for bats for foraging. High A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitats. Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats. Site is close to and connected to known roosts. ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGATION 2.11 An evaluation of the potential ecological constraints to the proposed development and appropriate mitigation strategies was made following CIEEM’s ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 11
(CIEEM, 2018). LIMITATIONS 2.12 Only one site visit was undertaken, therefore, a full evaluation of species present throughout the year could not be made. Furthermore, the site survey was undertaken in October. Therefore, there were seasonal constraints to species identification. However, the data collected during the site survey was sufficient to make an appropriate assessment of the site. 3 Policy and Legislative Context 3.1 This section includes the legislative context of those protected species or other notable species that are recorded on-site or have the potential to be present on-site. Details on specific legislation for other protected or notable species that have not been identified as being present, or having the potential to be present, are not included below. POLICY AND LEGISLATION 3.11 All UK bat species and their roosts are strictly protected under European and UK legislation (Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (CHSR), and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, (1981) (WCA). Furthermore, Annexe II of the Habitats Directive lists four UK bat species, providing them further protection. Under the National Planning Framework, bats and their roots must be considered during development. 3.12 Non-licensed bat workers are permitted to carry out preliminary roost assessments providing that they do not enter a known roost site or use invasive survey techniques such as endoscopes or artificial light. Survey constraints are discussed later in this report. 3.13 Otters are a European Protected Species and are fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended. Numerous offences are published concerning otters and it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly: ● capture, injure or kill an otter ● harass an otter or group of otters ● disturb an otter in a holt or any other structure or place it uses for shelter or protection ● disturb an otter while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young ● obstruct access to a holt or other structure or place otters use for shelter or protection, or otherwise deny the animal use of that place ● disturb an otter in a manner or in circumstances likely to significantly affect ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 12
the local distribution or abundance of the species ● disturb an otter in a manner or in circumstances likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young It is also an offence to: ● damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (whether or not deliberately or recklessly) ● keep, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange any wild otter (or any part or derivative of one) obtained after 10 June 1994 Otter shelters are legally protected whether or not an otter is present. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 3.2 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF), introduced in February 2023 sets out the Government’s planning policies for Scotland and how these are expected to be applied in the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Scotland’s planning system and development have an important contribution to make towards addressing the global biodiversity crisis. This is reflected in the Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4), which sets out new requirements for development to deliver positive effects, primarily under Policy 3. This states that all development will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant restoring degraded habitats. Proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity in accordance with national and local guidance. 3.3 The Government's objectives for planning are to promote sustainable development, to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of Scotland’s wildlife and geology and to contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 13
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.4 This report has been commissioned to comply with local policy. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION 3.6 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1982) 3.7 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1983) 3.9 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) 3.10 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) 3.11 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and by Section 11 (Schedule 6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland) 3.12 The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 3.13 The Habitats Regulations (Scotland) 2017 3.14 The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 3.15 The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2004) 3.16 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) 3.17 The Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975) 3.18 The Hedgerows Regulations (1997) 3.19 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1994) 3.20 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) 3.21 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act (1996) ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 14
4 Desktop Study HISTORICAL SPECIES RECORDS 4.4 Protected species records relating to the site and 2km search area were obtained from the NBN ATLAS as part of the desktop study. 4.5 A full list of identified species recorded within the 2km search area can be requested from LERC. 4.6 ● There were no records of otters (Lutra lutra) within 2km of the site. ● There were two records for Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and one record of Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 15
5 Site Survey Results 5.1 The site survey was undertaken by Connor Johnston on the 31st October 2024. The weather conditions were considered to be appropriate for the survey (Table 5.1.1). Table 5.1.1: Weather conditions at the time of the survey. Date of site survey: 31/10/2024 Temperature 12 degrees celsius Wind 16kmh Precipitation 10% *Data from Met Office. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 16
5.2 Potential Roost Features External Feature of value to bats Notes Photo Rocky Crevice PRF 1 Night or transitional roost (low) This large crevice approximately 20cm long and 15cm tall on the underside of the bridge offers a sheltered, stable environment that is well-protected from weather and predators. Its height above the burn (1.5M) and structural depth make it potentially suitable for bats as a transitional or night roost, especially for resting between feeding activities. Located at NS 23609 91131 facing East ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 17
Oak Tree PRF 2 Night or transitional roost (low) This feature is a longitudinal cavity approximately 30cm long and of undetermined depth in a moss-covered branch of an oak tree. Its location, natural cover, and potential internal space provide suitable conditions for individual bats as potential temporary roost, particularly for species that favour branch cavities in trees for shelter and protection. Located at NS 23585 91149 facing Southwest at a 3m elevation ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 18
Oak Tree PRF 3 Night or transitional roost (low) This feature is a narrow cavity of undetermined depth approximately 20cm long and 5cm wide in the moss-covered trunk of an oak tree, located near a branch junction. It offers suitable conditions for individual bats or small groups as a potential temporary roost, particularly for species that favour trunk cavities in trees for shelter and protection Located at NS 23679 91210 facing West at an elevation of 4m ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 19
Oak Tree PRF 4 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) The longitudinal split in the oak tree trunk, measuring approximately 2 metres in length and 10 centimetres in width, is a significant potential roost feature. Such splits, especially when they penetrate deeply into the trunk, offer sheltered environments that can serve as day, night, or transitional roosts for various bat species. The size of this split enhances its suitability, providing ample space and protection. Over time, as the split potentially widens due to natural processes, its value as a roosting site may increase, offering even more favourable conditions for bats Located at NS 23670 91253 facing West at an elevation of 4m ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 20
Oak Tree PRF 5 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) This natural cavity approximately 15x15cm in an overhanging branch provides a sheltered and stable environment, making it suitable for use by individual bats or small groups as a day or night roost. Its internal space offers protection from outside elements, and the accessible entrance enhances its potential for roosting, particularly for species that favour tree cavities for shelter. There is evidence that this branch has been used as a rope swing historically which would have periodically caused disturbance for any roosting bats. Located at NS 23755 91216 at an elevation of 5m ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 21
Oak Tree PRF 6 Night, transitional or daytime roost potential (Moderate) This natural cavity in a moss-covered branch surrounded by holly provides a sheltered and secure environment, offering potential as a day or night roost for individual bats or small groups. Its positioning and entrance size make it accessible while providing sufficient protection from weather and predators, making it suitable for species that utilise tree cavities for roosting. Located at NS 23735 91202 at an elevation of 3m facing West ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 22
Ivy covered tree PRF 7 Transitional or night roost potential (low) This tree, heavily overgrown with mature ivy, features multiple sheltered cavities formed by the woody growth of the ivy. The dense ivy cover, including both woody stems and foliage, provides adequate protection for individual bats and creates a stable microclimate. The presence of several small cavities offers the potential to host multiple bats, making it a suitable environment for roosting. Located at NS 23726 91194 at an elevation of 4m with small cavities in all directions ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 23
6 Evaluation and Assessment 6.1 Results from the desktop study and site survey were evaluated to assess the likelihood of occurrence for Otters and Bat potential (as per Tables 2.10.1 and 2.10.2). An evaluation of the potential impacts due to the proposed development and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures are provided in Table 6.1.1 below: ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 24
Table 6.1.1: Likelihood of occurrence of protected ecological features and species on-site, potential impacts due to the proposed development and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures. Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Bats (Chiroptera) Roosting bats Moderate There were historical records of Common and Soprano within 2km of the site. The site overall has good connectivity, and the habitat has a moderate likelihood of roosting bats The walkover determined that several natural and manmade features were suitable for roosting bats. The proposed development involves the construction of a house on neutral grassland and will not destroy any PRFs on site. The proposed development is likely to result in disturbance to suitable roosting habitats at PRF 4 and PRF 3 as they are within the area of work. The implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) could be implemented to minimise disturbance to potential bat roosts. This would involve a licensed bat ecologist conducting a pre-works inspection immediately before work begins to confirm the absence of bats, with all works carried out under their supervision. Low-impact methods, such as using hand tools near potential roost features, would reduce disturbance, and work would be scheduled to avoid sensitive times, recognising that the roosts are unlikely to be used for hibernation ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 25
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Foraging/Commuting bats High The woodland and grassland on site are considered to be part of a mosaic of suitable foraging/commuting habitats. Mitigation measures must be put in place to ensure that disturbance does not increase during and/or post-development. The proposed development may result in the loss of suitable foraging/commuting habitats if suitable mitigation strategies are not put in place. Construction works should be limited to daylight hours (excl. dawn and dusk) to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. Post-construction, the use of artificial lighting should be limited where possible. Motion sensors on outside lighting will prevent prolonged disturbance. It is recommended that outside lighting be set on short-timers (1 minute) and that the sensitivity be set to large moving objects only. Other terrestrial mammals (excl. bats). Otters (Lutra lutra) Low There are no known records of Otters within 2km of the site since 1991. There was suitable habitat in the nearby watercourse but no field signs were identified at the time of the survey None. No specific mitigation is required at this time; however, as the species are transient, pre-works checks should be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure no animals are present along the watercourse at the time of works being carried out. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 26
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Common and widespread mammals Rabbits Confirmed. There was evidence of Rabbits on-site in the form of droppings. The proposed development will not result in a substantial loss that will impact upon local populations long-term. Mitigation measures must be put in place to minimise disturbance during the construction phase. Any necessary excavation of animal burrows should be done carefully to avoid unnecessary suffering (such as crushing or asphyxiation). Construction works should be limited to daylight hours to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. Any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should either be well covered or provided with an escape ramp (comprised of a sloped side or wooden plank reaching up to ground level or slightly above), to allow any wildlife that falls to escape. Any newly built boundary features should incorporate ‘wildlife gaps’ (comprised of a 13x13cm gap at the base of the feature), to allow widllfie to pass through. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 27
Protected feature / species Likelihood of occurrence / suitability Comments / Justification Impact due to Proposed Development Required Mitigation Measures Invasive plant species Confirmed Multiple invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Rhododendron and Japanese Knotweed, were identified during the survey. Invasive plant species have the potential to impact protected species and habitats It is recommended to consult an expert in invasive species management to ensure proper and effective removal. Professionals can assess the site-specific conditions and recommend the most appropriate removal methods, such as mechanical cutting combined with herbicide application or other techniques suitable for the habitat ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 28
. 8 Conclusions 8.1 The site at Land at Glencairn Park, Garelochhead is proposed to be redeveloped with the construction of a house along the western boundary of the site on a patch of grassland. 8.2 The site has moderate potential for roosting bats, supported by historical records of Common and Soprano Pipistrelles within 2 km of the area. The site features good connectivity and suitable habitats, with several natural and manmade features identified as potential roosting features (PRFs). Although the proposed development will not directly destroy any PRFs, construction activities are likely to disturb roosting habitats at PRF 3 and PRF 4, which fall within the works area. To mitigate this, it is recommended to implement a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This plan should include: ● A pre-works inspection by a licensed bat ecologist to confirm the absence of bats immediately before construction begins. ● Supervising all works near potential roost features under the guidance of the bat ecologist. ● Using low-impact methods, such as hand tools near PRFs, to reduce disturbance. ● Scheduling work to avoid sensitive periods, as the roosts are unlikely to be used for hibernation. 8.3 The site includes woodland and grassland, forming part of a mosaic of habitats highly suitable for foraging and commuting bats. To prevent adverse impacts on these habitats: ● Construction should be limited to daylight hours, avoiding dawn and dusk, to minimize disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. ● Post-construction, artificial lighting should be minimized, with outside lights set on short timers (e.g., one minute) and equipped with motion sensors sensitive only to large objects. 8.4 No evidence of otters was found during the survey, and there are no recent records within 2 km of the site. Despite suitable habitat in a nearby burn, no mitigation is required for this species at this time. However, pre works checks are recommended due to the suitability of nearby habitat 8.5 No incidental evidence of protected species was found on site apart from rabbit droppings. The proposed development is unlikely to significantly impact local populations long-term. However, the following mitigation measures are recommended: ● Excavations of animal burrows should be carried out with care to avoid harm, such as crushing or asphyxiation. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 29
● Construction should be limited to daylight hours to avoid disturbing nighttime foraging activity. ● Trenches or other excavations left open overnight should be covered or fitted with escape ramps (e.g., a sloped side or wooden plank). ● Any newly constructed boundary features should include wildlife gaps (13x13 cm) to allow wildlife movement. ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS 8.3 Development proposals must have regard for protected species identified as potentially occurring on, or near to, the site. Mitigation measures to protect these species have been produced within this report to ensure that the proposed works comply with relevant UK legislation. 8.6 Further mitigation measures have been outlined within the report to ensure that protected species are not impacted by the development. Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) supervision will be required throughout the construction phase to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented appropriately. MITIGATION STRATEGIES 8.7 No further surveys should be required, however a CEMP should be implemented to ensure necessary precautions are taken. 8.9 A tool box talk should be given to all relevant personal by a suitable qualified ecologist before any works commence on-site to outline ecological constraints and the required mitigation measures. 8.10 The grassland should be retained at a short sward prior to any demolition/construction works commencing on-site in order to ensure that the habitat does not become more favourable to amphibians and/or reptiles. 8.12 Tree works (if required) should take place outside the breeding season (typically March-October) or once a suitability-qualified ecologist has inspected the trees for breeding birds and confirmed that there are no active nests. 8.13 Construction works should be limited to daylight hours (excl. dawn and dusk) to prevent disturbance to nighttime foraging activity. 8.14 Vegetation removal must be undertaken using hand tools. Cut vegetative materials should be checked and removed from the site immediately. 8.15 Any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should be well covered to deter Badgers from entering. If this is not possible, any trenches or other excavations left open overnight should either be ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 30
provided with an escape ramp (comprised of a sloped side or wooden plank reaching up to ground level or slightly above), to allow any wildlife that falls in to escape. 8.16 Any necessary excavation of animal burrows should be done carefully to avoid unnecessary suffering (such as crushing or asphyxiation). 8.17 During hibernation season (October to March), piles of leaf litter and logs should be retained to ensure hibernating hedgehogs are not harmed. If removal is unavoidable, the piles must be carefully checked before burning. 8.18 Post-construction, the use of artificial lighting should be limited where possible. Motion sensors on outside lighting will prevent prolonged disturbance. It is recommended that outside lighting be set on short-timers (1 minute) and that the sensitivity is set to large moving objects only. 8.19 Any newly built boundary features should incorporate ‘wildlife gaps’ (comprising a 13x13cm gap at the base of the feature), to allow wildlife to pass through. SUMMARY 8.20 Subject to the completion of a CEMP to ensure suitable mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact on otter and bat species in the area. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 31
9 References and Bibliography 1. ARG UK. (2010). Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. ARG UK, UK. 2. CIEEM. (2017). Guide to Ecological Surveys and Their Purpose. CIEEM, Winchester. 3. CIEEM. (2017). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. CIEEM, Winchester. 4. CIEEM. (2019). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal, Marine. CIEEM, Winchester. 5. CIEEM. (2021). Biodiversity Net Gain Report & Audit Templates. CIEEM, Winchester. 6. CIEEM. (2022). Code of Professional Conduct. CIEEM, Winchester. 7. CIRIA, CIEEM & IEMA. (2016). Biodiversity Net Gain. Good practice principles for development. CIEEM, Winchester. 8. CIRIA, CIEEM & IEMA. (2019). Biodiversity Net Gain. Good practice principles for development: A practical guide. CIEEM, Winchester. 9. J. Collins. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. The Bat Conservation Trust, London 10. DEFRA. (2022). DEFRA MAGIC. https://magic.defra.gov.uk. 11. English Nature. (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, UK. 12. Gunnell, K., Grant, G. & Williams, C. (2012). Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London. 13. The UK Habitat Classification Manual (Butcher et al., 2020). 14. Langton, T., Beckett, C. & Foster, J. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Suffolk. 15. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/. 16. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. 17. Mitchell-Jone, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (2004). Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition. JNCC, UK. 18. Scottish Badgers. (2018). Surveying for Badgers Good Practice Guidelines Version 1. Scottish Badgers, Scotland. 19. Reason, P.F. and Wray, S. (2023). UK Bat Mitigation Guidelines: a guide to impact assessment, mitigation and compensation for developments affecting bats. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Ampfield. ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 32
10 Limitations 10.1 ROAVR Group has prepared this Report for the sole use of the above named Client/Agent in accordance with our terms of business, under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. 10.2 This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of ROAVR Group. The assessments made assume that the land use will continue for its current purpose without significant change. ROAVR Group has not independently verified information obtained from third parties. 10.3 This report, data tables and raw data remain the copyright of ROAVR until such time as any monies owed are settled in full and the report may be withdrawn at any time. 10.4 The ultimate decision to do/not do any work on any structure/tree/feature and any legal consequences of any action taken/not taken lies solely with yourselves and/or your employees/subcontractors. ROAVR Group accepts no liability or responsibility in any way for any actions taken/not taken by you and/or your employees and/or any other person/organisation engaged in carrying out/not carrying out any of the proposed work. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Prepared by: Connor Johnston Checked by: Aiden Berg ROAVR Group all rights reserved.
Page 33
Appendix 1: Site Location and Assessment Boundary Figure A1.1 Site location (Purple) Survey Boundary (Red) ROAVR Group all rights reserved.