• London, the Home Counties and wider the South East England area
• The North West England area
• The Birmingham and the Midlands

We need your help

However, please get in touch wherever you’re based. You never know what work we might have for you.

If you want to be trained to undertake bat emergence surveys under the supervision of a licenced bat surveyor, or if you can do this already, please get in touch.

If you have experience

• We insure you
• We provide your bat detector and survey kit
• We pay you £75 per shift (e.g. per dusk survey)
• We pay you mileage
• We write the reports

If you don’t have experience

We are quite prepared to invest time in training you. You’ll be supplied with all the kit and one of our licenced surveyors will spend time with you, showing you the ropes. While you attend our customers’ sites during your initial training period, you will do so on a voluntary basis. However, when we’re both happy that you are component to undertake bat activity surveys to our desired standard, we’ll starting paying you the same rates we give everyone else.

Just get in touch

We can’t wait to work with you on our 2012 summer bat surveys!

Contact:

Martin O’Connor BSc (Hons) MIEEM CEnv

0787 212 7684 and moc@arbtech.co.uk

Robert is founder and (in this blog post, the frustrated) managing director of Arbtech, a leading ecological consultancy.

Bear with me, this is a long one

Yesterday afternoon, I took a call from a wildlife trust officer at Surrey Wildlife Trust. The guy wasn’t calling to speak to me, but since I was alone in the office, I tried to help. So after an exchange of pleasantries he explained that he was calling because Surrey Heath council’s planning unit had sent him one of our reports to look at, which related to a planning application from last year, on Old Bisley Road, Camberley, GU16.

This is nothing out of the ordinary.

However, I recall this particular application and site, because of the fiasco that ensued when we submitted our scoping and emergence bat surveys to Surrey Heath in summer 2011.

“Bat survey fiasco”

This particular site was owned and was the home of a nice family: let’s call them the ‘Smiths’. Mr Smith wanted to put a second storey extension on his home and because that involved some works to the roof, so an assessment for bats by a competent professional was requested by the planning officer (rightly so).

Arbtech produced our report of bat scoping survey, which found no bats, but moderate habitat value and a small number of ‘old’ droppings. We believed these droppings to be from brown long eared bats, but because of their age, could not be sure. In consequence, Surrey Heath asked the Smiths for a report of bat emergence survey (again, rightly so).

Surveyors from Arbtech’s ecology team, led by Martin O’Connor BSc (Hons) MIEEM CEnv, performed a dusk emergence and a dawn swarming and re-entry survey. There was no bat activity whatsoever, so our conclusion was that the property was no longer used as a roost, and therefore our recommendation was to provide some bat habitat enhancements at the property, to meet the requirements of PPS9, and leave it at that.

No bats, no problem.. or that’s how it should be anyway

All of the surveys had been performed in strict accordance with the Bat Conservation Trusts’ 2007, ‘good practice guidelines’.

Surrey Heath’s officers however, were not convinced. They asked for a European protected species licence (EPSL) to be obtained and a full mitigation proposal to be designed to accommodate brown long eared bats. This was frustrating. The whole point of performing a survey in accordance with good practice guidelines is that a widely acknowledged, minimum level of scientific rigour has been applied to the process of assessing any risk to bats arising from development.

For those of you who don’t know: obtaining an EPSL would cost the Smiths time – 30 working days of determination period to be precise – and money – our fees alone would be in the region of five to six hundred pounds for preparing an EPSL document and mitigation method statement.

More surveys? Just because Surrey Heath says so?

Between Arbtech and the Smiths we decided to undertake a further emergence and dawn survey, to prove beyond any doubt that the roost was no longer in use. The survey was done, and guess what? No bat activity whatsoever was recorded.

We then took this new information, with now twice the minimum level of survey effort recommended by the Bat Conservation Trust (who let’s be honest, want to see bats protected) to Surrey Heath. Initially they accepted our findings and recommendation – that is, there are no bats so no mitigation is required and certainly there is no need for an EPSL.

Surrey Wildlife Trust weighs in…

The Smiths then get a written consultation response to their application, from Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT), to say that they will need an EPSL. Furthermore, SWT insisted that we consult Natural England about whether a licence is required, should we have any questions about it. Now, aside from the fact that SWT both, one the one hand, provide planning applications consultation responses for the majority (all?) of the boroughs of Surrey, and yet on the other hand, perform ecological surveys in a commercial capacity (conflict of interest, you decide), they can be very inconsistent in the way they advise councils and consult on applications.

Here’s why. The Smiths went to work on this and found three examples of planning application sites with near-identical situations within a several-mile radius of the Smith’s family home, that had achieved a planning consent within the last year. All three had received a consultation response from SWT. How many of the planning applicants were being told they needed to design and install mitigation under licence? None.

Formal complaint to Surrey Heath council

So, having pointed this out in a formal complaint to Surrey Heath – for which to this day I have never received a response – I decided to take this a step further and contacted Natural England (NE), the licencing authority in England for protected species.

Naturally, it took a while to nail someone at NE down to a detailed response that was site specific, but I did not give up. Eventually, two very helpful ladies; Dr Claire Dowding, Lead Wildlife Management Advisor, and Dr Edel McGurk, Principal Advisor for Regulatory Improvement, provided a response to my satisfaction!

The response from Natural England

Drs Dowding and McGurk confirmed to me, in writing, their responses. Extracts from these responses are re produced below.

In regard to SWT asking for Arbtech/the Smiths to consult NE about the requirement for an EPSL:

• It is for the developer/site owner to decide, based on the advice of a professional ecological consultant, whether a licence is needed, and this decision will be based on the likelihood of offences being committed.
• Natural England cannot take this decision for you.

Well that was interesting! Take that Surrey Heath (and SWT). As professional ecologists, it’s our choice as to whether we advise the Smiths to pursue an EPSL and it’s their choice to follow or ignore that advice. The LA has no authority to mandate on either matter.

And, in regard to all properties requiring a licence if the area hosts a roost/has in the past been a roost:

• Not all works to bat roosts necessarily require a licence apart from the destruction of a definite bat roost, such as for a demolition.
• Obviously the interpretation of [what constitutes] a roost is a separate argument, which we did touch upon.
• All ecological consultants who qualify to hold Natural England mitigation licences must have demonstrated a sound and thorough knowledge of bat ecology including that they have obtained their own personal survey licences. This level of training helps to ensure that consultants are able to understand how different situations and environmental conditions might affect the species of bat and type of roost they are surveying and they must use this knowledge to justify their decisions.

Also interesting. “Not all works to bat roosts require a licence” is a direct contradiction to the advice given to the Smiths by Surrey Heath, presumably on behalf of SWT. Moreover, Drs Dowding and McGurk comment that licenced surveyors have enough experience and professional judgement to make calls like “is this roost no longer in use?” and that LAs need to respect that authority in qualification.

Sorted, right? Wrong..

All this considered, you can imagine my surprise when, getting on for a year later, I am called out of the blue by an officer for SWT, asking if the Smiths are going to apply for an EPSL to discharge their conditions.

Naturally I had a 20-minute rant at the bloke about how “we’ve been through all this” and “no they aren’t, because it’s not a roost.”

He eventually came around to our point of view and kindly informed me that he would recommend to Surrey Heath that the condition is discharged to his satisfaction.

Result

Or is it? I am starting to question the value of e.g. the BCT’s Bat Survey—Good Practice Guidelines, when it seems, every LA has a different view of what the survey season is (May-Sept? Apr-Oct? June-Aug?), what temperature/weather conditions are acceptable, and among other things, how people like the Smiths can prove beyond doubt that their family home is not a roost, without spending unreasonable sums of money on unnecessary surveys/mitigation.

Is it time for a British Standard document to be produced on the subject of bat surveys?

Feel free to give me your thoughts via e-mail@arbtech.co.uk.

Would you like to chat about your bat survey requirements? Call Martin O’Connor or e-mail him via moc@arbtech.co.uk.

You’ve got your designs completed, the money’s all there and you’re about to submit an application for planning permission. But, the local authority has said that you need to submit the findings of a Great Crested Newt survey before building can start. So, what exactly is this, why is it needed, and how can you get one done and proceed with your building plans?

Great Crested Newt Survey from £399

The reason that you’re being asked to have a Great Crested Newt survey carried out is that this species of newt is protected under EU and UK law. This means that all local planning authorities are obligated to ensure that it is adequately protected from building developments, and that both the species and individual newts do not come to any harm.

Great Crested Newt Surveys at Arbtech

A survey carried out by a professional ecologist is the best way to get this done, and this is something you must arrange yourself, by calling in the experts like Arbtech. A Great Crested Newt Survey will involve a number of visits to your property to look for the presence of Great Crested Newts. If none are found then it is likely that your plans can go ahead. However if newts are present, the survey will also have to take into account how they will be affected by your construction plans. A mitigation plan may then need to be drawn up in order to show the planning authority how you will ensure that the newts will not come to any harm.

Great Crested Newts giving you a headache?

Arbtech can do all of this for you, helping you to comply with all current legislation and push your building plans forward. We ensure that all costs are kept as low and as transparent as possible. Call us today on 08450 176950 for a friendly chat, or read more about Great Crested Newt Surveys here.

All prices are correct at the time of publication, include our traveling expense and your report, but exclude value added tax.

Tree Surveys and Subsidence

Having trees in your garden can greatly enhance the visual appeal of your home, and provide habitat for birds and other wildlife. Unfortunately, in some cases they can do your property more harm than good, resulting in long-lasting headaches and even financial loss.

Why do trees cause subsidence?

Subsidence usually occurs when the soil surrounding the house or other building has a high clay content. This is because clay is very susceptible to contracting or expanding, depending on how much water is in the soil. If there are trees close to the building, or more importantly if their roots are close to it, then they will draw a lot of water out of the surrounding soil to support themselves. Particularly during prolonged dry spells in summer, this may result in the ground becoming very dry and the clay contracting. This in turn makes the soil less able to support the heavy weight of building foundations, leading to subsidence.

Dealing with tree-related subsidence

It is exceptionally difficult to predict the occurrence of subsidence, but when there is evidence that it is taking place, steps can be taken to reduce the impact and even prevent it from happening in the first place.

Tree Surveys for Subsidence

Arbtech can carry out a Tree Survey that will help you to gain a clearer picture of what’s going on, and propose actions to reduce or prevent the problem. Our expert tree consultants can also assist you with all matters regarding the removal of trees from a planning authority perspective.

For an informal chat about your subsidence needs, or to arrange a tree survey, call us today on 08450 176950.

Re. BCT LinkedIn forum requests for BREEAM Report

Over the last few months, I have received around 30 requests for a copy of the Arbtech BREEAM Ecology Report (link to service page only) featured by the BRE themselves, in their 2011 guidance note to BREEAM assessors, GN01.

An apology from Robert Oates

A lot of the requests came via a Bat Conservation Trust post on LinkedIn, which I confess I had completely forgotten about.

It’s been pretty hectic here. What with Arbtech being invited to contribute to the BBC’s One Show and working at the Richmond home of Sir David Attenborough, as well as running a business, I had other things occupying my mind. However, a friend amongst you alerted me to several postings in that thread, where it seems, several people have grown a bit restless.

Unfortunately, I can’t upload documents to a post on LinkedIn, so anyone who would like a copy of the report can download it here.

Best wishes,

Rob.

Surrey Wildlife Trust require Bat Surveys

Surrey Wildlife Trust oversees the assessment of planning applications, often with the help of Surrey Bat Group. Following the link, you will be taken to Surrey Bat Group’s web site page that highlights the criteria Surrey Wildlife Trust use to determine the risk to bats, in consequence of your demolition and construction, or conversion. They do this generally, using their own criteria, which looks for habitats and protected species of all kinds, including bats.

Bat Surveyors in Surrey

Bat surveys come in two varieties: an initial bat survey and bat emergence surveys. By following this link, you can watch a video clip taken during a recent bat survey in Berkshire.

Initial bat surveys in Surrey will cost £329 from Arbtech and involve a licensed bat surveyor attending your site to conduct a very thorough internal and external inspection. The results of the survey are presented in our report which will define bat presence, evidence of activity—such as droppings—and habitat value as negative or positive. In the case that any of these findings are significant, Surrey Wildlife Trust will undoubtedly ask you to present a more detailed study: the emergence bat survey. However, bats hibernate overwinter because the insects upon which they predate are not abundant. This means that while initial, scoping bat surveys can be undertaken year-round, bat emergence surveys are time limited.

Licensed Bat Consultants in Surrey

Natural England, the Bat Conservation Trust, and most local planning authorities, will accept your summer (emergence) bat survey report provided that the surveys are undertaken during the activity season for bats: April through October. Regrettably, Surrey Wildlife Trust has taken the decision to challenge consultant’s reports of bat surveys for emergence and re entry activity if they are undertaken outside of May through August. Undertaking as we do, perhaps 300 or more bat surveys in Surrey throughout each year, we have to engage Surrey Wildlife Trust many times to challenge their consultations to local planning authorities. To date, we have never had a bat survey refused in Surrey, though because Surrey Wildlife Trust adopt this unusual (and in our opinion, excessive) policy, several applicants each year come close to getting refused.

If you want to talk about your bat survey in Surrey, or perhaps Surrey Wildlife Trust have commented on your application, then call us today and book your survey while our great offer on initial bat surveys for £329 persists. It won’t last long!

Robert Oates

Similar offsetting schemes are already in place in countries such as Australia, and the US. The way it works is that developers can ‘buy’ the right to remove habitat, provided that they then enhance or create another habitat area. Many global schemes achieve this with a credit system, in which the developer buys credits in conservation projects in return for any habitat loss caused.

How the system will work in practice when it is launched remains unknown, with even Defra’s July 2011 ‘Biodiversity Offsetting’ Technical Paper conceding, “Applying biodiversity offsetting in England would be a new and innovative approach, and there are many aspects which we don’t fully understand yet.”

A risky approach?

The authors of a recent study, entitled ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’, consider any metric which translates abstract natural values into tangible and rigidly defined financial value a risky approach. They say that, “ecological processes are too complex and interlinked and present too many unknowns for us to do this without risking grave damage.”

The Ecologist meanwhile described it as, “a licence to cause ecological damage.” But could biodiversity offsetting be a better deal for the environment than the current system, whereby developers are permitted to permanently lose quality habitats in exchange for a few ecological surveys and reports? Quite possibly.

If created conscientiously and managed properly, a system of offsetting could lead to a much more sustainable situation in the UK, in which the loss of one habitat is compensated by either the creation of a new habitat space, or the enhancement and protection of other existing habitats.

A complex metric

Getting the metric itself right will be crucial to the effectiveness of the offsetting scheme. One potentially worrying point from the Defra document is that, “metrics [will be] transferable between sites and habitats, allowing an impact on one habitat type to be offset with conservation action elsewhere, or involving a different habitat type and/or quality of habitat.”

To succeed in protecting habitats and biodiversity itself, there must be measures in place to ensure that one particular type of habitat does not suffer overall across the country, while another flourishes due to offsetting. Furthermore, it must not be made possible for developers to destroy irreplaceable habitats that have developed over centuries, regardless of compensation elsewhere.

Perhaps one of the most important things is that the metric and the offsetting process in its entirety is constantly monitored and refreshed by a human element, and not left simply to rigid formulas. A guiding human hand which is focused on environmental preservation but sympathetic to developers needs must remain at all times.

The challenge for ecological consultants

The scheme is certainly a step in the right direction, at a time when the reversal of habitat loss is absolutely paramount. But despite its noble intent, one great danger of biodiversity offsetting is the commoditisation of habitat loss, and developers and politicians simply paying lip service to conservation aims, while ‘fiddling’ the system, where possible.

In order to achieve its aim, of preserving biodiversity now and in to the future, all those involved in the offsetting scheme pilot must stay true to the overarching philosophy of natural conservation that informs it.

Continued ecological functionality

Everyone, from the policy makers and planning authority officials to the developers themselves and the professionals they employ, must recall that aim in each decision they take, instead of simply adhering to a system and working it where possible. And of course, the role of qualified and experienced ecologists and habitat surveyors will be crucial in ensuring that any offsetting scheme provides a good deal for nature.

Robert Oates

Save £££ on Your Badger Survey with Arbtech

Badgers hibernate. This means that if you have been asked for a badger survey by Elmbridge, Guildford, Surrey Heath or any other council, the constraint on your development is not only physical (do I/Don’t I have badgers,) but time-limited. The optimal survey season for badger surveys is February through April and October through November. Outside of this time, so-called “bait marking” badger surveys are impossible.

Badger Survey Video Clip

In the video that follows, Arbtech surveyor Mark Best watches the progress of a building contractor in Cheam, Surrey, carefully scrape away earth just outside of a known protection zone, identified in a badger survey earlier this year. By phasing the development, the applicant was able to progress part of the site works, while she applied for a Badger License to do works elsewhere in the site, known to be used by badgers.

Badger Habitat Surveys in Surrey

However, what you can do is provide the council with a badger survey that concentrates on habitats and local, known populations. If there are no records of badgers in your area, and you have no habitat to support them, then only the presence of a badger sett found during a badger survey, should be able to hold up your development application.

Badger Survey Summary

Bait marking badger surveys are expensive, very expensive. They are usually performed over at least a two-week period, and use lots of peanuts, syrup and plastic pellets—not forgetting of course, they are also time limited. Why go to this up front expense? You could try to eliminate the need altogether with a less comprehensive, more practical and cheaper badger survey for habitats—which can be undertaken year-round. If minimizing your up front costs is important to you, or you think there is very little chance of badgers being effected by your development, then call us today!
Robert Oates

100% Money Back Guarantee on Arboricultural Reports

You should always buy from someone who puts their money where their mouth is. We do this. Our arboricultural reports for planning applications come with 100% money back guarantee if the planning authority is not happy with the tree survey data presented in your arboricultural report, we commit to putting our mistake right immediately. If we can’t do this, for any reason, you get your money back. No hassle, no quibbles.

Save £££: Get your Arboricultural Report up front

An arboricultural report is likely to be a validation requirement for your planning application. Having your report to hand can eliminate the likelihood of your application being refused or not validated, due to a “lack of information.” Even if not a validation requirement, it’s more than likely that in the long run your application wont be determined without an arboricultural report. This can be more costly than meets the eye. If you have already paid your Chartered architect or consultant to prepare your proposed development’s plans, they may need to change in consequence of the results of your tree survey report. Better to make edits to your arboricultural report at very little relative cost, than to pay the architect to make changes to the scheme you’ve pinned your hopes and dreams on.

What does an Arboricultural Report actually cost?

Expect to pay from £199 for a basic mortgage application arboricultural report and from of £349 for a basic arboricultural report for planning and development.

Robert Oates

This blog post explains a little bit about bat surveys and what goes on while our surveyors are at your property!

Berkshire bat surveys by Berkshire licensed bat surveyors

This was a site we surveyed earlier this year in Old Windsor, Windsor and Maidenhead, Berkshire. Previously, a scoping bat survey had been undertaken whereupon the surveyors found the site had ‘high’ habitat value – assessed by the Bat Conservation Trust good practice guidelines for bats surveys – in the form of loose tiles on the roof, large gaps along ridgeline and yet more gaps at eaves.

Finding evidence of bat activity during a bat survey

In context, the site lies close to the river Thames and Runnymead Nature Reserve, which of course is very high value habitat, offering numerous roosting and foraging opportunities: adding further weight to the case that bat would be using the building.

Finally, the internal inspection revealed two droppings in the loft space, which are evidence of bat activity and “confirm” the roost. In consequence, the report of our initial bat assessment required that so-called bat emergence surveys should be undertaken to determine the species of bat (often the species can be identified from droppings, but not always,) and the population number.

Bat Emergence Survey in Berkshire

The emergence surveys for bats were duly undertaken by undertaken by three of Arbtech’s bat surveyors: Martin O’Connor, Mark Best and Polly Booth. The defacto standard ‘two dusk and one dawn’ survey was undertaken in August. A total of four common pipistrelle bats were seen to emerge from the building.

Several other species of British bats were heard and record by our bat surveyors, including brown long eared, daubentons and serotine.

The emergence surveys were undertaken and our report sent to the local planning authority for their assessment and approval. Naturally, the report breezed past the planners and consent to build subject to a European protected species license and bat mitigation method statement was granted without conditions (relating to bats at any rate.)

Robert Oates