St Mary Redcliffe Project 450 RIBA 2 Stage End Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Method 2.8 A list of other species considered during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey are listed below: • Badger • Dormice • Great Crested Newt (GCN) 2.1 The methods adopted in the survey throughout the assessment are outlined below. They accord with the good practice guidance documents for ecological survey and assessment produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 1 and the British Standards Institute 2 . Desk Study 2.2 To provide additional background information to the report, and to highlight any potential habitat and/or species that may be influenced over the proposed changes to the Site, an evaluation of pre-existing biological records was undertaken. A data search for statutory designated sites within a 5km of the Site was undertaken as well as a data search for non-statutory designated sites, bat records and other notable species groups within 2km of the Site. 2.3 Data was both requested and collated from the following sources: • Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre (BRERC); and • Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC). 2.4 Absence of species records within the desk study from the biological records does not equate to absence in reality. Species distributions were interpreted with caution as they may reflect surveyreporting effort rather than actual distributions. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2.5 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken. This survey is a rapid, standardised approach to categorising different habitat types within any given terrestrial site, and was carried out within the Site boundary. 2.6 A DAFOR scale was applied to the species listed within each habitat type. A DAFOR scale assigns a letter to a species based on how prominent they are within that particular habitat, it is at the discretion of the surveyor to decide what label to assign to a particular species. DAFOR translates as: • D – Dominant • A – Abundant • F – Frequent • O – Occasional • R – Rare 2.7 The survey was ‘extended’ by considering the suitability of the Site for notable or protected fauna and flora. Species considered included those identified within the desk study, or those considered appropriate by the surveyor whilst on Site. The survey was conducted by Greg Nightingale BSc, ACIEEM and Isaac Hogan BSc, MSc, QCIEEM on 12 th August 2019. Weather conditions were sunny and dry. • Nesting Birds • Reptiles Bats 2.9 Several different bat surveys were carried out as to assess the Site’s suitability to support bat roosts. The following surveys were undertaken: Preliminary Roost Assessment, Preliminary Hibernation Assessment, Ground Level Assessment (GLA) and Endoscope Surveys. 2.10 All features were examined using a torch (CB2-L1) Clubman Deluxe Li-Ion 12V 8.8 AH and binoculars (Pentax Papilio ll 5x21)). The search took place on the 12 th August 2019, conducted by Greg Nightingale (Class 2 Bat Licence holder) and Isaac Hogan. The survey methods used is in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines 3 . 2.11 Only the areas of the Site to be affected by the proposals were assessed (i.e. a complete survey of the church was not carried out as the church would largely be unaffected by the proposals). Information gathered was then used to evaluate the Bat Roost Potential (BRP, for designation see Table 2.1) of each feature. Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) 2.12 A PRA of the exterior of the church was undertaken to determine if the building had the potential to support bat roosts. The PRA on Site included inspecting the north-east and south-east church walls up to one storey high from the courtyard area only, as these were the areas to be affected by the proposals. In addition, and external and internal survey of a small outbuilding, located to the south-east of the church, was undertaken. This is the first step towards establishing whether there are roosts present in, or access points available on structures or buildings. Features searched for included: gaps in brickwork/stonework, lifting damaged rendering on walls and lifted, or under tiles and slates. A thorough search for actual and potential signs, including bats, droppings, urine splashes ect, were searched for. Preliminary Hibernation Survey Assessment 2.13 Proposals include below ground work, as a result preliminary hibernation surveys were conducted in underground spaces beneath the church and northern lawn, including the cellar; the vault; and a third underground space, to evaluate the suitability for use by bats over winter. A thorough search for actual and potential signs, including bats, droppings, urine splashes ect, were searched looked for as well as potential access points into the underground area. including all vents, ducts, and surfaces. Ground Level Assessment (GLA) 2.14 All trees within the Site underwent a GLA. This included all trees found within the southern lawn. The assessment involved a detailed inspection of a tree from ground level to identify any Potential Roost Features (PRFs) that could be used by bats to roost. PRF searched for included: woodpecker holes, loose bark, hollow trunks, cavities, splits and cracks along branches, and dense ivy lattices. Endoscope Survey 2.15 PRFs found during the GLA, which were within close proximity to the proposed works was subject to an endoscope survey (Video Borescope N85NH). This enabled a detailed review of the potential for the PRF to support a bat roost. Evidence such as: droppings, grease marks and staining, 1 Survey guidance is available at http://www.cieem.net/sources-of-survey-methods-sosm- and appraisal guidance is available at http://www.cieem.net/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea- 3 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd ed). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. 2 British Standards Institute (2013). BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development. BSI, London. Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 8 September 2019 Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 7 September 2019
feeding remains and bats were searched for. The survey was carried out on the 26 th September 2019 by Greg Nightingale (Class 2 Bat Licence holder) and Isaac Hogan. The weather conditions for this survey were dry and cloudy, although there was a short burst of rain on route to the survey. Table 2.1: Guidelines for assessing the suitability of structures and trees for bats to roost within BRP Category Negligible Low Roosting Habitat Features Negligible habitat features likely to support roosting, commuting or foraging bats Structures in this category offer one or more potential roost sites for individual, opportunistically roosting bats. These sites do not offer the space, shelter or appropriate conditions to support large numbers of bats or maternity roosts. Survey Requirement No surveys required 1 dusk or dawn survey required for structures. No surveys required for trees. Limitations 2.16 It is important to note that ecological surveys provide information regarding the ecological baseline of a site for only a ‘snapshot’ of time. Therefore, if significant time lapses between the surveys; if further development or implementation of proposals have been updated; or if there has been significant changes to habitat present on Site then ecological surveys may be required to identify any change in the baseline, such as natural succession of habitats, or local extinction or colonisation of species. Therefore, if a year lapses between the progressions of development proposals, it is recommended that ecological advice is sought regarding the applicability of the survey findings 4 . Tree in this category include those of sufficient size and age to support suitable roosting features, but none are visible from the ground Moderate Structures and trees in this category offer one or more roost site that, due to their space, shelter or conditions, offer roosting potential for a range of species. Roosts may be more permanent, rather than opportunistic. Small maternity roosts of common species may form in one of these roost sites. 1 dusk and 1 dawn survey required for both structures and trees. Tree-climbing may be an appropriate alternative to dusk and dawn surveys. High Structures and trees in this category have one or more potential roost sites that are suitable for large number of bats. Roosts are likely to be permanent and include maternity roosts. Potential roost sites exist for a wide range of species or species of particular conservation interest. 3 surveys, including both dusk and dawn elements. Tree-climbing may be an appropriate alternative to dusk and dawn surveys. 4 CIEEM (2019). Advice Note: On the Lifespan of Ecological Reports and Surveys. Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Available from:https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Advice-Note.pdf Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 9 September 2019 Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 10 September 2019
Page 1 and 2:
ST MARY REDCLIFFE PROJECT 450 RIBA
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT TEAM 2.0 INTRO
Page 5 and 6:
2.0 INTRODUCTION Funded jointly by
Page 7 and 8:
Project 450 Board Review Instructio
Page 9 and 10:
4.1 STRUCTURES Undertaken by Integr
Page 11 and 12:
s dopted e, whilst A full CCTV surv
Page 13 and 14:
3.2 Existing Trees There are a larg
Page 15 and 16:
Stability can be provided by reinfo
Page 17 and 18:
1563.R1 - Stage 2 report Page 5 of
Page 19 and 20:
LEGEND 40-60 W/m 2 HEAT GAINS - NAT
Page 21 and 22:
LEGEND 40-60 W/m 2 HEAT GAINS - NAT
Page 24 and 25:
4.3 LANDSCAPE Introduction The purp
Page 26 and 27: Historical Context The southern chu
Page 28 and 29: Landscape Concept The diagram adjac
Page 30 and 31: Response to Site The ANGULAR framew
Page 32 and 33: Sketch Plan: North Churchyard 3 The
Page 34 and 35: Sketch Ideas Red cliff - continuati
Page 36 and 37: NORTH CHURCHYARD Simple high-qualit
Page 38 and 39: SOUTH CHURCHYARD Mown paths/ margin
Page 40 and 41: 4.4 SCHEME UPDATES ARCHITECTURAL PR
Page 42 and 43: FFL 12.00 FFL 10.36 FFL 10.36 FFL 1
Page 44 and 45: FFL 12.00 FFL 10.36 FFL 10.36 FFL 1
Page 46 and 47: 4.5 CURRENT PROPOSALS 11 13 3 9 10
Page 48 and 49: 27 29 28 A Concept Image for the Ne
Page 50 and 51: 31 32 The Chancel South Aisle & Pri
Page 52 and 53: 4.6 MATERIALITY The design team hav
Page 54 and 55: PROPOSED OPENING TO NORTH AISLE
Page 56 and 57: Former Opening to South Porch Stair
Page 58 and 59: 4.8 AREAS OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Page 60 and 61: 5.0 CONSULTATION In order to ensure
Page 62 and 63: 6.0 COST PLAN Throughout RIBA Stage
Page 64 and 65: 7.0 RISK REGISTER To ensure the eff
Page 66 and 67: SMR - PROJECT 450 - RISK REGISTER R
Page 68 and 69: 8.0 PROGRAMME The below-listed prog
Page 70 and 71: 10.0 APPENDICES Endnotes 1 Sampson,
Page 72 and 73: St Mary Redcliffe Appendix B BS 583
Page 74 and 75: 10.2 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Contents
Page 78 and 79: 3 Results with some parts ancient w
Page 80 and 81: Eurasian Badger Meles meles Mammals
Page 82 and 83: oost is defined as any structure or
Page 84 and 85: Appendix 2 Policy & Legal Considera
Page 86 and 87: A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Page 88 and 89: 10.3 MEP STRATEGY 4 Site Infrastruc
Page 90 and 91: 5 Proposed infrastructure This opti
Page 92 and 93: 1563.R1 - Stage 2 report Page 12 of
Page 94 and 95: 9 Mechanical Services Strategy 9.1
Page 96 and 97: In some public areas low surface te
Page 98 and 99: Drainage is provided to the existin
Page 102 and 103: Flexible conduits will be used for
Page 106: 35 HYB ASS'D ROU 1 x 75 35 Hyb AR T
show all

St Mary Redcliffe Project 450 RIBA 2 Stage End Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?