Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Planning Approval Conditions Discharge Document
Planning Application No: 23/01235/B Conditions: 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8 Application Description: Proposed re-development of Commissioners Yard, Workshops & Office including dwelling house to provide a Brewery and associated Tap Room, Eatery & Offices Proposal Site: Castletown Commissioners Yard, Milner Terrace, Castletown, IM9 1TE Applicant: Bushy’s Brewery
Introduction
In compliance with the above planning approval, this document provides a detailed presentation of specifications complete with photographic evidence to ensure clarity and adherence to the following stipulated requirements;
Condition 2 - Construction Materials to be used Condition 4 - Parking Management Plan Condition 6 - Breeding Bird and Bat Emergence Surveys Condition 7 - Ecological Mitigation Plan Condition 8 - Low Level Lighting Plan
Condition 2 - Construction Materials to be used:
Material - Natural Welsh Roof Slate Size - 500x300mm (20”x12”) Colour - Heather Blue Grade - County Grade (7mm) Manufacturer: Penrhyn
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
==== PAGE 2 ====
Material: Dressed Limestone Description: Existing Dressed Limestone Gate Pillars
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
Material: Vertical Timber Cladding Description: British Larch or Douglas Fir Approx. 25mm thick x 125/150mm wide Fixed vertically board on board/Yorkshire boarding
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
==== PAGE 3 ====
Material: Lime Mortar & Mortar Mix Description: Pre-mixed NHL 3.5 Lime mortar Manufacturer: Baumit or K-Lime
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
Material: Guttering & Downpipes Description: Cast Iron effect gutters, downpipes and associated fittings Manufacturer: Brett Martin ‘Cascade’ range Colour: Classic Black
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
==== PAGE 4 ====
Material: External Rendering Description: Pre-mixed NHL 3.5 Lime mortar Manufacturer: Baumit or K-Lime Colour: TBC
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
Material: Rooflights Description: Conservation type rooflights complete with recessed flashings Manufacturer: Velux Colour: Black
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
==== PAGE 5 ====
Material: Windows Description: Accoya framed, sliding sash and casement windows, painted with Teknos microporous paint system, glazed using Fineo vacuum glass Manufacturer: Frames Local Joinery contactor), Glass (Fineo), Paint (Teknos) Colour: TBC
Below is the photographic evidence showing the material:
==== PAGE 6 ====
Condition 4 - Parking Management Plan:
Objective: To outline the Parking Management Plan in accordance with Condition 4 of the planning approval for the re-development of the Commissioners Yard, which will be transformed into a brewery with an associated tap room, eatery, and offices. This plan focuses on the allocation and management of parking spaces to ensure efficient use and minimise any adverse impact on the business reputation and customer satisfaction.
Parking Allocation (Off Site Staff Parking): Location: Claddaghs Car Park - Back Hope Street, Castletown (as identified on approved drawing no 7B): Spaces Allocated: 3 spaces (numbered 18, 47 & 48 - see attached licenses from DOI Harbours Division) Usage: These spaces will be reserved exclusively for the employees of the proposed development. Access: Employees will have unrestricted access to these spaces.
Parking Allocation (On-Site Public Parking): Spaces Allocated: 3 additional spaces created on the proposal site in front of the proposed offices. Usage: These spaces will be available for public parking under the following conditions: Type of Vehicles Allowed: Motor cars or motorcycles only (motorhomes are not permitted). Duration: Parking permitted for a period of 12 hours within a 24-hour period. Signage: Clear signage will be displayed on-site to outline the duration and frequency of permitted stay together with enforcement measures and penalties. Enforcement Measures: Penalty Notices: Fines will be issued if parking rules are abused. Clamping: Unauthorised parked vehicles may be clamped. Release Fee: A release fee will be charged for clamped vehicles.
Rationale: These measures are necessary to: Provide order and structure within the parking area. Deter unwanted and unauthorised vehicles. Mitigate the loss of on-street parking on Milner Terrace. Protect the business reputation and ensure customer satisfaction.
Conclusion: This Parking Management Plan aims to effectively manage the parking spaces associated with the re-development of Commissioners Yard, ensuring that both employees and the public have clear guidelines and rules to follow. The enforcement measures will help maintain order and prevent misuse of the parking facilities.
==== PAGE 8 ====
1
Breeding bird survey report
Commissioner’s yard, Castletown
Fulfilment of part of Condition 6 of planning approval for application 23/01235/B for Redevelopment of Commissioner’s Yard.
Prepared for Kelly-Lewthwaite Building Design Limited
August 2024
Elizabeth Charter MCIEEM, CEnv and Tim Earl Island Biodiversity Consultants
Contents Executive summary ... 2 1.0 Introduction ... 3 1.1 Breeding birds ... 3 1.1.1 Swift... 3
==== PAGE 9 ====
2 1.1.2 House sparrow ... 4 1.1.3 Starling ... 4 1.1.4 Swallow ... 5 1.1.5 House martin ... 5 1.2 The development ... 5 2.0 Methods ... 6 2.1 Survey dates ... 6 2.2 Swift survey ... 7 2.3. House sparrow survey... 8 2.4 Swallow survey... 8 2.5 Starling survey ... 8 2.6 House martin survey ... 8 2.7 Incidental bat survey... 8 3.0 Results... 8 3.1 Summary of breeding bird survey ... 8 3.2 Swift nest sites ... 9 3.2.1 Numbers of swifts flying ... 10 3.3 House sparrow nest sites ... 10 3.4 Swallow nest sites ... 14 3.5 House martin nests ... 14 3.6 Starling nests ... 14 4.0 Conclusions ... 14 Appendices ... 16 Appendix 1 Credentials ... 16 Appendix 2 Conditions of planning approval... 16 Appendix 3 Swift breeding cycle ... 17
Executive summary This Breeding Bird survey report for Castletown Commissioner’s Yard is required by Planning Condition 6 in order to identify and safeguard legally protected species, and their places of shelter and protection, or nesting spaces. This will inform the Ecological Mitigation Plan (Planning Condition 7).
All birds are protected, but those listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act are specially protected while breeding. The Schedule 1 birds which could occur at the developments site are swift, (Apus apus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and starling (Sternus
==== PAGE 10 ====
3 vulgaris). Other birds which could be nesting are swallow (Hirundo rustica) and house martin (Delichon urbicum).
Swifts are a very important species to conserve, having shown a sharp decline in numbers (60% between 1995 and 2020) and now being on the British Isles (including the Isle of Man) red list of endangered species. The swift has a Biodiversity Action Plan on the island, currently in draft, (as required by the Biodiversity Strategy 2015-20151).
Breeding birds were surveyed in May. June and July 2024, following UK best practice guidelines, at the appropriate time of year and by a suitably qualified ecological consultant with help from volunteers.
One active swift nest hole and at least 20 active house sparrow holes were recorded. No nesting swallows were confirmed and no house martin nests or active starling nest holes were recorded.
The careful and supervised implementation of the Ecological Mitigation Plan is the means by which to ensure current, recently used and possibly used nest holes of swifts are not affected by the development, through repointing or changes to the building. Mitigation is required for loss of any other breeding birds’ nest holes. There may be an opportunity to insert swift bricks in the NE facing wall of building A. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Breeding birds This survey focussed on the rare and declining breeding birds likely to be affected by the development of Castletown Commissioner’s Yard.
The Schedule 1 birds2 which could have been nesting at the development site are; • Swift (Apus apus) • House sparrow (Passer domesticus) • Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
Other breeding birds known to have nested or attempted to nest are; • Swallow (Hirundo rustica) • House martin (Delichon urbicum)
1.1.1 Swift Swifts are declining rapidly on the island and are on the local Amber List of Birds of
1 https://www.gov.im/media/1346374/biodiversity-strategy-2015-final-version.pdf 2 Wildlife Act 1990 schedule 1
==== PAGE 11 ====
4 Conservation Concern on the island3. This status needs to be reassessed in view of the observed decline in nest site use in the last 8 years. They may well qualify for the red list now. 2024 seems to have been a particularly poor breeding season for swifts.
Swifts appeared to decline from the 1980s onwards probably due to property renovations (Manx Bird Atlas, 2007). The short-term decline in breeding population of 41.9% between the first Bird Atlas (1998-2003) and the second (2006-2016) is documented. This is a considerable drop in 7 or 8 years. The trend appears to be continuing.
In the UK swifts have recently been added to the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (and this assessment includes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands). 5 Species qualify for the Red List if they have declined by more than 50% in the last 25 years. Records show that breeding swifts have declined in Britain as a whole by 60% between 1995 and 2020. In the Isle of Man we do not have the long-term population figures to know if there was a 50% decline between those dates but nearly 42% decline in 7 or 8 years suggests it is very likely and the listing should be reviewed.
Swifts are entirely reliant on buildings to nest. A significant number of nests have been and are continuing to be lost when buildings are demolished or renovated. Because swifts are faithful to their nest sites, breeding in the same site year after year, their breeding success is being severely affected and their numbers are declining dramatically. Loss of swift nest sites can mostly be attributed to building renovation without appropriate careful conservation measures. 1.1.2 House sparrow House sparrow is on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern in the UK (including the Isle of Man) and has declined by 69% between 1977 and 2018, in the British Isles as a whole.
The House Sparrow is listed in Europe as SPEC3 species (i.e., species whose global population is not concentrated in Europe but which is classified as regionally extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, declining, depleted or rare at European level). This criterium qualifies the species for inclusion on the Isle of Man Amber List.
House sparrows nest in holes in buildings and will use sparrow “terraces” or multiple nest boxes side by side if placed in the right location, under eaves. They may temporarily occupy swift nest holes. 1.1.3 Starling Starling is on the Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern on the Isle of Man: species considered to be of moderate conservation concern. 2024 appears to have been a good breeding season for starlings which nest early (mid April to end May). Starlings nest in holes in buildings.
3 BOCC IOM http://manxbirdlife.im/manx-birds/
==== PAGE 12 ====
5 1.1.4 Swallow Swallows are also on the local Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern. Many nest sites are lost each year through renovation or demolition of buildings and disturbance. These birds also suffer from lack of aerial insects. Swallows build nests of mud and grass on rafters and ledges inside buildings, including porches. Artificial swallow cups have been used successfully but the site must be suitable (sheltered and dry). 1.1.5 House martin This bird like the swift has recently been added the British Isles Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern due to its decline. House martins build cup-shaped nests of mud under eaves on the outsides of buildings where the house surface is suitable. House martins will use artificial nest cups under the eaves, but house sparrows may also use them for a season. 1.2 The development Planning application number 23/01235/B was approved with various planning conditions, of which 6, 7 and 8 are relevant to the ecology. The redevelopment of the site will provide a brewery and associated tap room, eatery and offices (see figure 1).
This breeding bird survey is to satisfy planning condition 6 (See appendix 2).
==== PAGE 13 ====
6
Figure 1 The development as amended January 2024.
2.0 Methods As required by planning condition 6 this breeding bird survey followed UK best practice guidelines and was undertaken by suitably qualified ecological consultants (see Appendix 1).
The swift survey followed the Swift Conservation survey guidelines4. 2.1 Survey dates May 28 2024 daytime for starlings, swallows and house sparrows, 1 hour May 29 2024 evening for swifts, swallows (and bats), 2.5-3 hours June 17 2024 evening for swifts, swallows (and bats), 2.5-3 hours July 12 2024 evening for swifts, swallows (and bats), 2.5-3 hours
4 https://www.swift-conservation.org/Swift%20Survey%20Techniques.pdf
==== PAGE 14 ====
7 After further discussion with the Manx Bat Group the proposal to combine bat and swift surveys was dropped as not practical, requiring more volunteers skilled in bat surveys than were available. The recommendation was that the Manx Bat Group should be contracted directly to undertake bat surveys. Incidental bat records were made by the swift surveyors using the Wildlife Acoustics Echo Meter bat detector and an iPhone. Figure 2 Buildings surveyed 2.2 Swift survey Swifts can only be accurately surveyed in the evening when the birds return to their nests. The 2024 survey followed Swift Conservation guidelines5. The best time is from two hours before dusk to half an hour after. Weather should ideally be hot and dry (not so easy on the Isle of Man in 2024). It is possible to detect their nests either as the swifts enter or leave them, just at dusk and shortly after, when the adults return to spend the night with the chicks. Holes were observed carefully by pairs of people to ensure no swifts were missed entering or leaving holes and nest holes were accurately located. Holes used by swifts were marked on photographs of the different elevations. The swift survey focussed on Building A. Groups of swifts screaming past the building were also recorded if this occurred as were maximum numbers in the sky nearby. The aim was to undertake 4 evening surveys but in the event only 3 evening surveys were possible due to weather and access constraints. 5 https://www.swift-conservation.org/Swift%20Survey%20Techniques.pdf
==== PAGE 15 ====
8 2.3. House sparrow survey Faces of the building were observed by single observers for an hour during the daytime on 28 May and recorded during evening swift surveys on the other dates. Holes used by house sparrows were marked on photographs of the different elevations, focussing mainly on building A. 2.4 Swallow survey The only buildings suitable for swallows were A and D. It is possible that swallows might use open windows in A but they could also use Building D when the rolled door is open or closed. Both buildings were observed for swallows entering or leaving. Swallows enter and leave buildings during the daytime as well as evening, so were surveyed on all visits. 2.5 Starling survey The latest the starlings could be surveyed was late May, so on 28 May the buildings were searched for signs of dropping around holes, adults feeding young and the sound of chicks calling to be fed. 2.6 House martin survey All buildings were searched for active nests, including the artificial nest site. 2.7 Incidental bat survey The bat detector was switched on at sunset and all visible bats also recorded. The bat records were passed to Manx Bat Group who are undertaking the bat survey. 3.0 Results 3.1 Summary of breeding bird survey
date species number of pairs observed locations Max swifts seen in flight 26/05/2024 house sparrow 7 in building A
29/05/2024 swift 1 below window building A 3 29/05/2024 swallow 1 in building D
29/05/2024 house sparrow 2 in building A
29/05/2024 house sparrow 1 In house martin nest box on building C
17/06/2024 swift 1 below window building A 14 17/06/2024 swallow 0.5 in building D
17/06/2024 house sparrow 6 In building A
12/07/2024 house sparrow 5 in end of building A
12/07/2024 swift 1 below window building A c30 12/07/2024 Swallow 0 in building D
==== PAGE 16 ====
9 3.2 Swift nest sites In 2024 there was one active swift nest site, and this hole was also used in 2023 and 2020.
Figure 3 Active swift hole 2024 (Building A NE elevation)
Figure 4 Precise location of hole D (in building A, NE elevation) used by swifts in 2024
==== PAGE 17 ====
10
Figure 5 Active swift hole in 2020 used by house sparrows in 2024 (Building A NE elevation) 3.2.1 Numbers of swifts flying Maximum numbers of swifts seen in flight on 29 May were 3, almost certainly due to poor weather conditions (13C with drizzle). On 17 June there were a maximum of 14 seen in the air on a warm sunny evening. On 12 July there were approximately 30 swifts feeding high up on flying ants on a warm sunny evening. This larger number includes juvenile birds returning to prospect for nests for future years, some of whom may use the Commissioner’s Yard. None were observed “banging” at nest sites here but this may have occurred when the swift holes were not being observed. This behaviour by juveniles checking for occupation of nest holes was observed at a swift nest site just outside the Commissioner’s Yard in Hope Street in 2024. 3.3 House sparrow nest sites At least 20 holes were being used by house sparrows during the season. These will include holes previously used by swifts. All except the one in the house martin box are in holes in the stonework of Building A. Other positions at the eaves showing signs of dead grass of active or past house sparrow nests were observed during the initial survey in 2023.
Figure 6 (from 2023 report - figure 11)
==== PAGE 18 ====
11
Figure 7 House sparrow nest holes (W elevation Building A)
Figure 8 House sparrow nest holes (SW elevation of building A)
==== PAGE 19 ====
12
Figure 9 House sparrow nest holes (SW elevation of building A)
Figure 10 House sparrow nest holes (SE elevation of building A)
==== PAGE 20 ====
13
Figure 11 House sparrow nest holes (NE elevation of building A)
Figure 12 House sparrow nest in house martin box (NE elevation of building C)
==== PAGE 21 ====
14 3.4 Swallow nest sites During the May surveys two swallows were observed flying back and forth between the buildings B/C and D, but in June there was only a single swallow. At dusk they entered building D above the roller door. No swallows were observed in July. In July swallows were observed high overhead with swifts and house martins feeding on flying insects. There is nothing to connect these feeding birds to those using building D.
No obvious active nest was seen on the daytime visit to building D on 28 May. 3.5 House martin nests None were using the buildings in 2024. 3.6 Starling nests None were using the buildings in 2024. 4.0 Conclusions Building A is the oldest and is the most important structure for nesting swifts and house sparrows because it has many holes in the stonework where pointing has fallen away. There must be cavities behind these holes suitable for nesting swifts and house sparrows. The house sparrows and swifts use the same sort of holes. House sparrows begin nesting earlier than swifts. Sparrows may use external sparrow boxes.
Each female swift lays 2-3 eggs (see Appendix 3, Swift breeding cycle). Young swifts raised here will return here to breed in 3-4 year’s time, so there are up to 9 birds for each nest used three or four years ago, which could return and breed here as well as those observed breeding here in 2024. Not all young will survive to breed, but at least 10 suitable holes should be kept open to maintain the colony.
It is vital to conserve these nest holes. Swifts are extremely site faithful, so once they have found a suitable nest site they will continue to use it for the rest of their lives. Some colonies are very old indeed and have been used by successive swift generations for tens if not hundreds of years. Their dependence on our buildings makes them very vulnerable to any sort of disturbance, so once a colony has been destroyed it makes it very difficult for them to find a new home.6
In addition to requiring holes swifts need to be able to access these holes. The birds fly towards the wall and swoop up to the hole which slows their flight for entry into the hole. On exiting they swoop downwards. The free space below the holes enables their access. It is therefore essential there is an open area below holes. Birds were seen flying from above S and S Motors, dropping down and swooping up to the active nest hole. This active hole is unusually low so the drop below it must be kept free of obstructions.
6 https://www.bristolswifts.co.uk/swift-info/
==== PAGE 22 ====
15 The Ecological Mitigation Plan (required by Planning Condition 7) will be drawn up for breeding birds, in discussion with the architects, the developer and Manx Bat Group to a) define the time window within which all the construction and renovation work must take place (ie outside the bird breeding season). This must also take account of the bat survey results. b) keep suitable swift nest holes in the stonework of building A (the taproom and eatery) c) identify places where swift bricks/stones7 can be used when repairing the roof or stonework of building A, and d) identify opportunities to create nest sites for swallows, house martins and house sparrows in the replacement for building D (brewery) on building B and C (Offices) and on building A (taproom and eatery).
In the mitigation hierarchy avoidance of loss or disturbance is the primary aim. At least 10 holes used in 2024 should be maintained for breeding birds, primarily swifts, recognising that house sparrows may use some of these holes.
7 https://www.swift-conservation.org/swift_bricks.htm
==== PAGE 23 ====
16 Appendices Appendix 1 Credentials Elizabeth Charter (MSc) is a professional ecologist and conservationist with wide- ranging terrestrial and aquatic identification skills, especially plants and birds. Elizabeth’s knowledge of the ecology of the Isle of Man is based on 26 years residence. Her knowledge of the relevant Manx legislation, government policy and procedures, comes from 17 years employment as Government’s principal ecologist. She has knowledge of other floras in Europe and further afield. Her skills include assessing species’ abundance and distribution, mapping and evaluating significance, recommending management and appropriate conservation measures. She has 10 years experience giving farm conservation advice. She has also undertaken site evaluation of international importance in relation to Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as Ramsar wetlands.
Elizabeth is a member of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, a founder member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and is a Chartered Environmentalist. She is a fellow of the RSPB, a member of the Manx Bat Group, a founder member and chairman of the Isle of Man Fungus Group and until recently chairman of the Manx Basking Shark Watch. She also chairs the Farmland Birds project committee (a partnership project). As well as a knowledge of plants she has studied other aspects of natural history. She was on the committee of the Manx Bat Group and has worked as a professional wildlife guide showing people birds, insects and mammals, including cetaceans, in the British Isles, Europe and further afield.
Tim Earl is an ornithologist with many decades of experience in bird identification and behaviour. Tim has been on the island since 2013 running very successful bird identification courses and working with the Calf of Man Bird Observatory where he trained leading to re-registering as a bird ringer. He is a member of the Alderney Bird Observatory steering committee. A past president of La Société Guernesiaise, he is a Fellow of the RSPB and a British Trust for Ornithology member. He has shown people wildlife, especially birds, on most continents of the world as a professional wildlife guide, on land and at sea on cruise ships. Currently he is involved in the Point of Ayre National Reserve showing people water birds, explaining their identification features and life cycles.
Both have recent experience of swift surveys, reports and successful discussions with developers to avoid disturbance to swift nest sites. Appendix 2 Conditions of planning approval Condition 6. Prior to the commencement of development, including any repointing, the following schedule of survey work shall be carried out and inform an Ecological Mitigation Plan required to be submitted by condition 7 of this planning permission. Such survey work shall include:
==== PAGE 24 ====
17
Breeding bird surveys; Bat emergence surveys;
All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecology consultancy.
Bat surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required.
Bird surveys are required to identify the species of birds utilising the property, their abundance and their nest entry point/s and this will determine the mitigation required.
Reason: To identify and safeguard legally protected species, and their places of shelter and protection, or nesting spaces. Appendix 3 Swift breeding cycle Clutch normally 2-3 white eggs (May-June) Incubation period 19-21 days (mostly hatching mid June) Fledging is 5-8 weeks (late July-early August) One year old birds return in July to prospect and identify colonies, but don’t stay long and never start nest building.
Two year old birds arrive from mid-May onward to look for a suitable nest site, find a mate and begin nest building.
Three year old birds return in early May to breed for first time.
From https://www.bristolswifts.co.uk/swift-info/ The bird ages may not be as exact as suggested by this website.
The average lifespan of a swift is nine years, reaching breeding maturity at around four years old. Estimates of the oldest recorded swift range from 18 - 21 years old. Swifts pair for life and will actually form their pair bonds from as early as one year old when the pair will seek out their nest site that they return to year after year, but they are unlikely to nest successfully for another few years. Swifts fledge at around six weeks old and are immediately independent of their parents, beginning their migration to Africa only a few days after leaving the nest. To prepare themselves and build up their wing muscles, at 3-4 weeks old while still in the nest, young swifts will do “press-ups” by pushing down on their wings to lift their bodies off the ground.
==== PAGE 25 ====
18 Once-fledged swifts spend most of their lives in the air, they even drink, mate and sleep while still flying. The only time they land is to nest. Every year they make the 6,800-mile round trip from their winter feeding grounds in Africa to their breeding grounds in Britain, arriving in our skies during April and May, and leaving as the summer ends in August. Swifts are voracious hunters, specialised in catching flying insects and drifting spiders. They collect insects in a special pouch at the back of the throat binding them together with salvia into a pellet known as a bolus that weighs just over a gram but can contain anywhere from 300 to 1,000 insects. They regurgitate the bolus to feed their chicks. Originally swifts would have nested in crevices in trees or cliffs but they now almost exclusively nest in the roofs of buildings, making them a feature of urban wildlife. They are dedicated homeowners, constructing their nests using a variety of materials they find on the wing, including feathers, paper, straw, and seeds, which are all cemented together with their salvia. They will return to the same nest every year and make repairs and renovations before laying their eggs. From https://ealingwildlifegroup.com/2023/07/24/species-focus-common-swift/
==== PAGE 26 ====
Ref:- KPW-23/01235/B
Registered Charity No 443
Castletown Commissioner’s Yard Milner Terrace Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1TE
Bat Survey Report
Report date: 1 September 2024
Author(s): Kevin Wells
Prepared for: Kelly-Lewthwaite Building Design Limited, Architectural Design & Consultancy, 23 Market Street, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 2PA
Quality Assurance
==== PAGE 27 ====
This report has been prepared following the Bat Conservation Trust’s guidelines contained in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition), 2016. The author holds a Bat License issued by DEFA in the Isle of Man
Contents 1. SUMMARY 3 2. INTRODUCTION 3 Description of site 3 3. PREVIOUS EVIDENCE OF BAT ACTIVITY 6 4. INVESTIGATION METHODS 6 5. RESULTS 6 Initial Inspection 6 Large garage indicated by red arrow 6 Stone building indicated by light blue arrow 6 Stone building indicated by Dark blue arrow 8 Anabat Chorus Static Recordings 11 Emergence Survey 11 Night Vision Video Survey 11 6. CONCLUSION 12 7. MITIGATION 12 8. CAVEAT 13
==== PAGE 28 ====
Summary Manx Bat Group were engaged to carry out a bat survey of the Castletown Commissioners Yard as part of the conditions of planning application for building of a brewery and conversion of the existing Manx stone buildings to offices, Tap Roo and Eatery. An initial internal and external inspection of the buildings showed no signs of bats roosting, but there were several potential roost features (referred to as PRFs in rest of this report) identified. In order to confirm if these PRFs were being used as roosts b bats, and also the use of bats as a feeding location, a static recorder was left on site for a few days, and an emergence survey was carried out on one evening. The emergence survey was followed up by an evening checking some of the PRFs using a night vision camera. Whilst there is no large roost being used by bats, there is a potential roost of 2 bats at the apex of one of the stone buildings. Provided any work in this area is carried out at the correct time of year, or the area is checked for roosting bats prior to work commencing and the recommended mitigation is put in place prior to and following the development wor, the bat group would recommend the work should be allowed to proceed.
Introduction
Description of site The site is the area contained within the red area seen in the satellite image below. At present there is 2 Manx stone buildings (blue arrows), a larger stone walled garage / storage building (red arrow) a portacabin (yellow arrow) and a small stone building which is not part of the planning application (green arrow). The site has a stone wall around the perimeter to the southwest. There are several buildings at a higher level to the west of the site.
The Southern most building (light blue arrow) consists of 2 x 2-story semi-detached houses. These have slate roofs with a loft area. They have UPVC soffits and facias Towards the rear at the northern end of this building there is a small single-story room with a sloping 2nd story connected to the main building
==== PAGE 29 ====
The 2nd stone building (dark blue arrow) is also a 2-story, which is being used as a workshop and storage area. It has a separate walled off office area on the ground floor at one end. Again, this has a slate roof, the underside of these slates is exposed to the 2nd floor of the building. There is a wooden facia attached to the end of the roof joists and no soffits.
==== PAGE 30 ====
The large garage building is mainly one large space floor with a small mezzanine area at one end and has a corrugated concrete type sheeting roof with glass rooflights. It has a large metal rollup metal door on the yard side of the building.
==== PAGE 31 ====
The portacabins are single story.
Previous evidence of bat activity The Manx Bat Group database has no evidence of bat activity in the yard.
Investigation methods
A daylight inspection of the buildings, both externally and internally was carried out using high powered binoculars and a torch where required. A Static recorder was left in a suitable location for 5 days within the yard to monitor any bat activity around the stone buildings. This was followed by an emergence survey of the 2 stone buildings with experienced surveyors being stationed strategically around the buildings to be able to see all points. The emergence survey did not include the building indicated by the red arrow or the portacabins as these were deemed to have no current use or future potential for roosting bats.
Due to the very small number of bats detected over the whole site during the first emergence survey which was carried out in ideal conditions for bat emergence, it was deemed unnecessary to carry out a second full survey As 2 as bats, seen between the two blue arrowed buildings by surveyors in front and behind the buildings, could not be discounted from having emerged from one of the buildings, a further check of this area was carried out using night vision a camera on another evening.
Initial Inspection Large garage indicated by red arrow
This had no obvious PRFs in the exterior walls. At the southeastern end of building there were 4 in-set, concrete filled / blocked, windows, again with no PRFs
Inspection of the inside of the building showed no droppings or other evidence of bats. There were no crevices or cracks visible anywhere on the inside that could be used as PRFs. The underside of the roof was fully exposed to the inside, and there were several skylights which allowed too much daylight into the building to make it an ideal location for bats
Stone building indicated by light blue arrow The 2 houses have a loft space, one of which was accessible, but although the 2nd house had an access hole, this was blocked and too small to access the loft space. There was no evidence of bats to be found in any of the rooms in the houses. The loft space that was accessible showed that the there was a BRM between the slates and the roof joists and that the 2 loft spaces have been separated by plaster boarding. There was no evidence of bats having been in the loft space that could be accessed.
==== PAGE 32 ====
When using binoculars to inspect the outside space it was noticed that there were several places where the soffits left small gaps where they meet the irregular stonework of the walls, which could potentially allow bats access to roost in the facia / soffit void, although no droppings or staining which might indicate bat use were observed.
==== PAGE 33 ====
The outside wall of this building is dressed blocks of stone and were in fairly good state of repair with no obvious PRFs.
Stone building indicated by Dark blue arrow No evidence of bat use was found inside this building. The underside of the roof is clearly visible from the 2nd floor. Again, it has a membrane between the slates and the roof joists, which is tightly fitted so no possible roosting space was available for bats to roost.
==== PAGE 34 ====
The walls of this building are more naturally shaped Manx stone and there were multiple gaps and cracks that could have been used for roosting bats. The lack of soffits also left sheltered spaces that might be used by bats.
==== PAGE 35 ====
At the southern end of the building there are 4 iron grills about halfway up the wall which could be used by bats for roosting. One of these has a missing bar, making it even more suitable as a PRF.
Only a very small number of bats were detected flying around the buildings during the 2 hours of emergence survey and these bats only did a couple of circuit before leaving indicating they were not using the yard for feeding.
==== PAGE 36 ====
Anabat Chorus Static Recordings
The static recorder was placed on site between 26th - 30th July 2024 in a position where it was facing across the yard towards the 2 stone buildings. The results have been analysed and showed very few bats used the yard during this period. On average there were around 100 calls recorded each night between the hours of 21:00 and 05:00. These calls were in small time groups indicating a bat(s) flying around for 1-5 minutes at a time. The bats recorded were mainly Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). There were also 1 or 2 faint recordings of a Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus Leisleri) per evening which would indicate the bat was just passing over the site rather than feeding there.
Emergence Survey
An emergence survey was carried out on the evening of 30th July. This started 30 minutes before sunset and finished 1.5 hours after sunset. The weather on the good with a starting temperature of 18 C falling to 12 C by the end of the survey. It was a clear evening with very little cloud in the sky and only a slight occasional breeze. 6 people were stationed around the 2 stone buildings covering all sides. During the survey period only 8 - 10 bats were observed or recorded, again these were Comon Pipistrelles which flew around the yard a couple of times before departing. A Leisler’s bat was recorded flying past. 2 bats were observed between the 2 stone buildings, around 20 minutes after sunset, by surveyors stationed behind and in front of the building. Neither of these surveyors saw these bats flying into the gap so it was thought they may have emerged from somewhere out of the southern end / corner of the workshop building. These were the only bats where we could not definitely say came to the site from outside of the yard and were not roosting there. Because of the uncertainty of these bats possibly roosting in the building, but the lack of any other emerging bats it was decided that a further full emergence survey was not required, but instead to monitor the building thought to be the possible roost site of the 2 bats on another evening using a night vision camera. Night Vision Video Survey
This took place on Saturday 3rd August. A video camera with night vision mode and infrared lights were set up covering the southern and a small area of the front wall of the stone works shop building (dark blue arrow). This was left recording from 30 minutes before sunset to 2 hours after sunset. It was a clear warm night, although there was a bit more of a breeze on this occasion. The video footage has been analysed and it appears that the 2 bats are emerging from a point near the Apex of the end wall either from a crack/ gap in the wall or a point where the slates rest on the stone wall (red area below) around 20 minutes after sunset. This is consistent with the bats being Common pipistrelles.
==== PAGE 37 ====
None of the buildings are being used by bats as a maternity roost. 2 bats were observed emerging from one of the buildings, so mitigation would be required for these bats during and after any works were carried out. It is also the thoughts of the author of this report that the yard (and the yard to the west currently housing a poly-tunnel are of no great importance as a feeding site for bats and not really used as a flight path between roosts and other feeding sites.
It is therefore the opinion of the author that the works should be carried out provided the mitigation in the next section is observed and implemented.
Work on the building where the 2 bats were seen emerging should ideally be carried out during the winter period of October to March, when bats will be hibernating. If the work has to be carried out any other time (and preferably even during that period) the area indicated should be closely inspected by a licensed bat worker using an endoscope where appropriate. The slates around the apex in the area suspected as a possible bat roost, on the western side should be carefully and slowly removed by hand and careful checking for bats whilst this work is undertaken. Should any bats or bat droppings be seen then the slate should be carefully replaced, any further work should stop in this area immediately and DEFA should be contacted for further advice.
If possible, any gaps in the wall or between the slates and wall or gaps / cracks in the indicated area should be left un-pointed, but if not possible a bat box or bat brick should be placed in the apex of the roof in the area indicated.
No vents or chimneys should be exhaust into the area where the bats exited. And no lighting should be sighted where it will shine or cause excessive light spill on the apex of this building.
When installing external lighting the Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK' Guidance Note GN 08 / 23 should be followed. Links to this guide, and other useful information can be found at the following Bat Conservation Trusts website :- https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/buildings-planning-and-development/lighting
==== PAGE 38 ====
The findings and conclusions presented above are based strictly on the evidence available at the time of the investigation. It is not possible for this site to rule out completely the possible presence of bats at some time in the future. All bat species, and their roost sites, are protected under the Wildlife Act, 1990. In the event that bats are encountered during the course of development works, then work must stop immediately and the staff at DEFA must be contacted for advice before proceeding. It should be noted that any bat related data gathered during the course of this survey will be held on a database by the Manx Bat Group and could ultimately be shared with our biodiversity partners in the Isle of Man and United Kingdom.
==== PAGE 39 ====
1 Ecological Mitigation Plan
Breeding birds
Castletown Commissioners’ Yard
Planning Application no. 23/01235/B
Planning Condition 7
Island Biodiversity Consultants
October 2024
==== PAGE 40 ====
2 Contents 1.0 Introduction ... 3 1.1 The development ... 4 1.2 Survey results (2023 and 2024) ... 5 2.0 Method statement ... 6 2.1 Avoidance ... 6 2.1.1 During construction ... 6 2.1.2 During use of development, ... 7 2.2 Mitigation ... 8 2.2.1 Maintaining holes suitable for swifts. ... 8 2.2.2 Maintaining holes suitable for house sparrows ... 9 2.2.3 Combining bat and bird conservation provisions ... 10 2.2 4 Alternative provision for nesting swallows ... 11 2.2.5 Provision for nesting house martins ... 12 2.2 6 Lighting ... 13 2.2.7 Ecological Clerk of Works ... 13 2.2.8 Monitoring ... 13 2.3 Compensation ... 13 2.3.1 Swifts compensation measures ... 13 2.3.2 House sparrow compensation measures ... 13 2.4 Enhancement ... 13 2.4 1 Swifts nesting ... 13 3.0 Awareness raising for swifts ... 14 Appendices ... 15 Appendix 1 Credentials ... 15 Appendix 2 Planning conditions ... 15 Condition 6. ... 15 Condition 7. ... 16 Condition 8. ... 16 Appendix 3 Bat Report Mitigation ... 17 Appendix 4 Durable house sparrow nest boxes as mitigation. ... 17 Appendix 5 Durable swift bricks as enhancement ... 19 Appendix 6 Durable swallow nest cups as mitigation. ... 21 Appendix 7 house martin nest cups for mitigation ... 21 Appendix 8 Hedging shrubs for birds... 22 Appendix 9 Work plan to accommodate Wildlife Act requirements ... 25
==== PAGE 41 ====
3 1.0 Introduction This plan is required by planning condition 7 (given in full in Appendix 2).
This includes • location of all existing nesting and roosting sites; and, those that are proposed to be retained and protected, • the number, type, specification and location of new bat and bird bricks, • hedging species, • lighting requirements, • work timings, • ecologist supervision and • other measures required by the ecological surveys.
In brief, ecological mitigation measures are designed to minimise impacts of the development on protected wildlife, in this case breeding birds including highly endangered swifts (Apus apus). Breeding birds are protected by the Wildlife Act 1990. Some birds are specially protected - being listed on Schedule 1 of this Act. Swifts and house sparrows (Passer domesticus) are both on Schedule 1. Provision for bats is included in the Manx Bat Group report, but referred to here as some of the same requirements apply.
Following the mitigation plan should ensure that the development does not breach the Wildlife Act before, during or after construction.
Planning policy requires that developments should lead to “no net loss” of wildlife, but discussions are taking place on how to implement Biodiversity Net Gain, introduced by the Climate Chance Act 2021.
Best practice recommends that measures to protect wildlife should follow a hierarchy in this order.
Avoidance First all efforts should be taken to avoid adverse impacts on wildlife, through adjusting the development such as changing of timing or by changing the location.
Mitigation Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, efforts need to be made to minimise impacts as far as practically possible through implementing mitigation measures on the site. These mitigation measures must ensure that there are no significant impacts on the habitats or the species of importance, especially those having protection under the legislation.
Compensation Where impacts are unavoidable, compensation measures offsite need to be considered, but only as a last resort.
==== PAGE 42 ====
4 Ecological enhancement In line with the concept of Biodiversity Net Gain but prior to its formal introduction it is important to consider how to enhance the ecology of the development site. 1.1 The development The development of the brewery and associated tap room, eatery and offices will mainly involve the renovation and re-purposing of existing buildings. However the existing large metal frame vehicle storage building will be replaced by a larger metal frame brewery building. The full details are found on the Government’s planning portal. Figure 1 reference plan for buildings A-D.
==== PAGE 43 ====
5
Figure 2 Development site layout 1.2 Survey results (2023 and 2024) Building A (tap room and eatery) This is the most important building for nesting birds. The 2023 survey was undertaken after the bird breeding season but informed by existing knowledge of the site. This 2023 report of the survey discovered 2 swift nest holes which had been used in the last 3 years (from reliable reports with video) and 12 other nest holes used by nesting birds (from visual evidence- droppings and nest material).
The 2024 survey identified one active swift nest and 20 holes used by house sparrows. Most sparrow nest holes were in building A (the older, stone building with numerous holes between stones where cement pointing is missing).
Building B No nest sites identified.
Building C House martins have attempted to nest under the eaves of this building. There is a house martin nest cup which is unsuitably placed for this species but was used by house sparrows in 2024.
121 Ellerslie 7 1 Ellerslie Nurseries ELLERSLIE Nursery & Garaging 130 3 126 131 GARDENS S & S Motors, Fuel Station, Convenience Store & Garage Workshop 133 6 7 12 1 2 8 4 5 MILNER TERRACE e forecourt carparking outdoor terrace carparking compound SITE EXIT staff parking staff parking glazed pergola tap room & eatery infill cellar offices brewery
==== PAGE 44 ====
6 Building D This building has had two pairs of nesting swallows in 2023 and a pair may have attempted to nest in 2024. 2.0 Method statement The advice here follows best practice advice on swift conservation for planners, builders, architects and community groups. Case studies show that conserving existing swift nest sites can be easily done and at very little cost. The key factor is to include provision for them at the planning stage, taking account of the period when the birds are nesting. 1 2.1 Avoidance This development, which involves alterations to existing buildings, has been given planning permission so no change of development location is possible.
Submission of bird and bat surveys prior to determination of a planning application would have been in line with UK best practice guidelines, as referred to in Section 9.2.4 of the British Standard Biodiversity - Code of Best Practice for Planning and Development (BS 42020:2013). Which states: “The presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. The use of planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances, such as where original survey work will need to be repeated because the survey data might be out of date before commencement of development, etc.”2
This was not the case for this planning application which makes it all the more important that provision for legally protected wildlife is included in the work plan.
2.1.1 During construction Building A The building work to make alterations to building A must take account of the breeding season of house sparrows avoiding taking place between 1st April to 30th September (the bird breeding season) unless measures have been taken to a) prevent birds nesting in the various holes, and b) provide alternative nest sites.
This applies to house sparrows but not swifts which are highly nest site faithful.
Swifts nest between early May and last week of August. The first swifts have been observed by the author in Castletown in the first week of May. It is important to avoid
1 https://www.swift-conservation.org/2017_SNH_Swift_Best_Practice_Advice_Note-2.pdf 2 DEFA advice
==== PAGE 45 ====
7 obstructing the nest holes used by or suitable for swifts in the NE facing wall of building A at the most sensitive time, the month of May. The most sensitive area is 3 m in front of the wall. But they require a space of 7m between their nest walls and the next building3 . The new brewery building is 7.2 away from this NE facing wall on the plan.
House sparrows typically raise two or three broods a year, sometimes four. Although nesting has been observed all year round, the main season is from April to August.4
There is therefore a period before 1st April when sparrow holes on a wall of building A which needs to be worked on between 1st April and 30th September must be closed off.
Failure to prevent nesting risks work being delayed while birds sit on eggs and rear young until fledging. However alternative nest boxes must be provided in places where they are likely to be used and not likely to be disturbed - the NE facing walls of buildings A, B and C, but particularly A. They should go up well before 1st April, at the eaves, avoiding affecting known the 10 agreed open holes on building A (for birds and bats - see Manx Bat Group report advice, see Appendix 3).
2.1.2 During use of development, Once building A is operational the avoidance required is not repointing the holes which have been left, avoiding adding any additional vents or other openings near the nest boxes and holes and avoiding any additional structures which might obstruct or affect the use of the protected holes.
The use of the building during the swift breeding season only requires that obstacles are not placed below the nest holes - large vehicles or temporary structures. This is essential to enable swifts to enter and exit, as they swoop up into the holes and drop down out of them. This is how they slow down to enter the nests and pick up speed on exiting. One way to do this may be to have yellow cross hatched area marked on the ground immediately below and infront of the known nest holes. One nest is unusually low, making this more important here than in other swift nesting locations.
3 Edward Mayer of Swift Conservation, pers. comm 4 https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/house-sparrow-passer-domesticus.html
==== PAGE 46 ====
8
Figure 3 Sensitive area and sensitive operations for swifts
The full schedule of work is to be appended in Appendix 9.
Swifts are commonly found in urban settings and have a level of tolerance for noise and light. However it would be advisable not to have speakers and music on the NE side of the building. 2.2 Mitigation Mitigation is required for nesting birds below as well as for roosting bats. • Swift • House sparrow • Swallow • House martin
2.2.1 Maintaining holes suitable for swifts. Swifts are very nest-site faithful and young raised in these holes over the last 3-5 years will look for suitable holes in this wall. This means the holes must be left open to accommodate a larger number of pairs of swifts than have been seen in 2023 and 2024.
a) Identification of “protected holes” on NE wall of building A to be left open and unchanged. It is essential that 10 holes are marked and left open on the NE facing wall when other walls of the building are repointed. These are referred to here as “protected holes”. In order to discover which holes are available for nesting swifts it is necessary to look into them with an endoscope and see how deep they are and if they are suitable. Having been used by house sparrows suggests a
==== PAGE 47 ====
9 usable hole but seeing into the hole will clarify their suitability. It will also help understand how deep the holes are and if there is any risk to them from work inside the building. For example using expanding foam into holes from the inside to create a draft-proof wall could risk affecting a swift nest hole.
b) Marking the holes with suitable material to ensure the repointing leaves them open. This should be durable but not be permanent so as not to attract attention to the holes or change their appearance for returning swifts. If the repointing of the whole NE wall is not done until after 30th September 2025 then the holes do not need marking until after the 2025 breeding season. Then in the non-breeding season the rest of the wall can be repointed.
c) Briefing the workforce about the need to conserve swift nest sites by a suitably experienced and qualified ecologist before work begins is essential. All those working on the walls and roof of Building A should be fully informed of the need to conserve wildlife (bats, nesting house sparrows - which may possibly be present at any time of year and nesting swifts).
2.2.2 Maintaining holes suitable for house sparrows By maintaining 10 holes suitable for swifts some may be used by house sparrows (unless temporary closures are put in place between 1sr April and 1st May). House sparrows are more willing to change nest holes and use sparrow terraces and boxes so the loss of their holes is more easy to mitigate.
House sparrow nest holes
Number of holes being used by nesting house sparrows 2024 Action by breeding season 2025 Number of box holes required in 2025 Building A
NE wall (facing S and S Motors) 7 leave open
SE wall (facing building B) 5 close and provide alternative box 5 SW wall (facing the polytunnel) 5 close and provide alternative box 5 NW wall (facing Ellerslie Gardens) 2 close and provide alternative box 2
Building B
NE wall (in house martin box) 1 remove house martin cup and provide alternative box 1
TOTAL 20
13 Figure 4 sparrow nest locations
==== PAGE 48 ====
10 Thirteen house sparrow nest holes will need to be closed which would increase conflict between swifts and house sparrows for remaining holes. Therefore house sparrow terraces and boxes must be erected with at least this number of holes. To ensure longevity of this mitigation measure these boxes need to be durable. See figure below and Appendix 4.
Figure 5 Durable house sparrow box
There are two ways to install these, on the exterior of the building A which most of the sparrows use currently and the offices (building B and C) at eave level. They can also be built into the top of new walls in the brewery if the building design is suitable.
It is vital that nest boxes are sited well away from extract fans and cooking air ducts as these are likely to prevent these boxes being used. Bright lighting may also affect use of sparrow boxes.
Sparrows need bushes as social gathering places being a communal nesting bird, so any shrubs in the garden by Milner Terrace should be maintained or if already removed new shrubs planted, close to sparrow nest holes and boxes. Bushes in the beer garden may not be suitable for several years, when they will have grown higher. A section of shrub and tree species for planting is found in Appendix 7) 2.2.3 Combining bat and bird conservation provisions
Work on the building where the 2 bats were seen emerging (building A) should ideally be carried out during the winter period of October to March, when bats will be hibernating. If the work has to be carried out any other time (and preferably even during that period) the area indicated (on the SE facing wall, see below) should be closely inspected by a licensed bat worker using an endoscope where appropriate. The slates around the apex in the area suspected as a possible bat roost, on the western side should be carefully and slowly removed by hand and careful checking for bats whilst this work is undertaken. Should any bats or bat droppings be seen then the slate should be carefully replaced, any further work should stop in this area immediately and DEFA should be contacted for further advice.
==== PAGE 49 ====
11
Figure 6 Bat roosting area
If possible, any gaps in the wall or between the slates and wall or gaps / cracks in the indicated area should be left un-pointed, but if not possible a bat box or bat brick should be placed in the apex of the roof in the area indicated.
When blocking sparrow holes to avoid nesting, the slots for bats at the roof apex should be left open.
2.2 4 Alternative provision for nesting swallows As two swallow nest sites will be lost provision must be made for nesting swallows. A structure has been proposed o the SE facing gable of building C, the offices.
Figure 7 Swallow accommodation
==== PAGE 50 ====
12
This provides the sheltered ledges on which swallows may nest. Droppings boards may be placed underneath is there is a concern about the area beneath. Swallow nest cups may be added to encourage nesting, (see appendix 5). 2.2.5 Provision for nesting house martins These external nest cups need to be attached to Buildings B and C (offices) at eave level in the places where they have previously tried to nest, this is the gable wall facing Milner Terrace.
Figure 8 house martin past nesting attempts.
The slant of the gables makes this difficult for an appropriately angled nest cup. At least 2 are required. It should be possible to place nest cups at the ends of the purlins (right hand arrow).
Figure 9 House martin nest cup
==== PAGE 51 ====
13 This is the normal position for a house martin nest cup - under a horizontal soffit.
If the roof is being replaced an soffits changed then these should be wooden
2.2 6 Lighting On the sensitive face of the eatery/taproom building (A) there will be no flood lights facing the NE wall. Instead there will be down lighters fixed half way up the wall, avoiding a 2m radius from the known swift nesting holes.
All lighting will follow the Bat Conservation Trust’s guidance on bats and artificial lighting.5 The colour of the lights and their direction will meet the recommendations and lighting will be turned off after the facilities close. Security lights will be motion- sensitive. See lighting plan.
2.2.7 Ecological Clerk of Works To ensure the Wildlife Act 1990 is respected and understood by all working on the site it is recommended that a suitably qualified and experienced Ecological Clerk of Works is employed for the duration of the works with presence especially in the bird breeding season and when stone walls are being repointed. 2.2.8 Monitoring To identify if the measures required here are effective it is recommended that swift, house martin, swallow and house sparrow nesting is monitored each breeding season for 5 years, by a suitably experienced ecologist.
It is also advised that all boxes and nesting facilities are checked and that the 10 protected holes are still open, when monitoring each year. 2.3 Compensation 2.3.1 Swifts compensation measures There is to be no loss of swift nest habitat so no compensation is necessary. 2.3.2 House sparrow compensation measures Alternative house sparrow accommodation will be provided onsite, as wel; as social gathering bushes. 2.4 Enhancement 2.4 1 Swifts nesting As there is to be a new roof on building A swift bricks can be incorporated into the top of the walls so that new nest holes are created at the eaves, by removing a stone and replacing with a swift brick. This will need to be done at the time of the roof replacement and as it involves hammering should not be done during the bird breeding season.
5 https://theilp.org.uk/publication/guidance-note-8-bats-and-artificial-lighting/
==== PAGE 52 ====
14 The use of at least one existing hole by swifts will make the use of these swift bricks more likely. External swift boxes are less attractive to these birds than boxes which are integrated into stonework at the eaves. External boxes are much less likely to be used. Swift bricks must not be positioned where there is already a protected hole. At least 6 swift bricks are recommended. Figures 10 Example of build in swift box.6 3.0 Awareness raising for swifts It should be possible to put a camera in nest bricks (not natural nest sites, which are probably inaccessible) for swifts so that the customers can be shown a live stream of the birds on their nests and help spread the word about their swift conservation. NHBS also sell wireless nest box cameras.7 Figure 11 Example of camera kit for nest boxes 6 NHBS practical conservation equipment. 7 Michael Howland (contacted via Manx Wildlife Trust) has experience of doing this.
==== PAGE 53 ====
15 Appendices Appendix 1 Credentials Elizabeth Charter (MSc) is a professional ecologist and conservationist with wide- ranging terrestrial and aquatic identification skills, especially plants and birds.
Elizabeth’s knowledge of the ecology of the Isle of Man is based on 25 years residence. Her knowledge of the relevant Manx legislation, government policy and procedures, comes from 17 years employment as Government’s principal ecologist.
Her skills include assessing species’ abundance and distribution, mapping and evaluating significance, recommending management and appropriate conservation measures. She has 10 year’s experience giving farm conservation advice. She has also undertaken site evaluation of international importance in relation to Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as Ramsar wetlands.
Elizabeth is a member of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, a founder member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and is a Chartered Environmentalist. She is a fellow of the RSPB, a member of the British Mycological Society, the Fungus Conservation Trust, Manx Bat Group, a founder member and chairman of the Isle of Man Fungus Group, chairman of the Farmland Birds Project and until recently chairman of the Manx Basking Shark Watch and the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum.
As well as a knowledge of plants she has studied other aspects of natural history. She was on the committee of the Manx Bat Group and has worked as a professional wildlife guide showing people birds, insects and mammals, including cetaceans, in the British Isles and further afield. She has knowledge of other floras in Europe and further afield.
Her experience of consultancy on the Isle of Man includes work with habitats, water protection, grassland fungi surveys, bird surveys and nest site protection (especially swifts). Her overseas experience includes botanical survey, habitat mapping, habitat condition assessment and report writing.
Appendix 2 Planning conditions Condition 6. Prior to the commencement of development, including any repointing, the following schedule of survey work shall be carried out and inform an Ecological Mitigation Plan required to be submitted by condition 7 of this planning permission. Such survey work shall include:
Breeding bird surveys; Bat emergence surveys;
==== PAGE 54 ====
16 All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecology consultancy.
Bat surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required.
Bird surveys are required to identify the species of birds utilising the property, their abundance and their nest entry point/s and this will determine the mitigation required.
Reason: To identify and safeguard legally protected species, and their places of shelter and protection, or nesting spaces. Condition 7. Prior to the commencement of development, including any repointing, an ecological mitigation plan written by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy, informed by the surveys secured by condition 6 of this planning permission, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning and the development then carried out in accordance with these details.
The ecological mitigation plan must contain measures for the avoidance and minimisation of impacts on wildlife, as well as compensation measures. Details should include • the location of all existing nesting and roosting sites; and, those that are proposed to be retained and protected, • the number, type, specification and location of new bat and bird bricks, • hedging species, • lighting requirements, • work timings, • Ecologist supervision • as well as other measures required by the ecological surveys.
Thereafter, these features shall be permanently retained and maintained.
Reason: For the protection of legally protected and high conservation concern species. Condition 8. No works to commence until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023) and recommendations within the Ecological Mitigation Plan required by Condition 7 of this planning permission has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. All works must be undertaken in full accordance with this plan.
Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment in respect of Bats which are a protected species.
==== PAGE 55 ====
17 Appendix 3 Bat Report Mitigation Mitigation Work on the building where the 2 bats were seen emerging should ideally be carried out during the winter period of October to March, when bats will be hibernating. If the work has to be carried out any other time (and preferably even during that period) the area indicated should be closely inspected by a licensed bat worker using an endoscope where appropriate. The slates around the apex in the area suspected as a possible bat roost, on the western side should be carefully and slowly removed by hand and careful checking for bats whilst this work is undertaken. Should any bats or bat droppings be seen then the slate should be carefully replaced, any further work should stop in this area immediately and DEFA should be contacted for further advice.
If possible, any gaps in the wall or between the slates and wall or gaps / cracks in the indicated area should be left un-pointed, but if not possible a bat box or bat brick should be placed in the apex of the roof in the area indicated.
No vents or chimneys should be exhaust into the area where the bats exited. And no lighting should be sighted where it will shine or cause excessive light spill on the apex of this building. When installing external lighting the Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK' Guidance Note GN 08 / 23 should be followed. Links to this guide, and other useful information can be found at the following Bat Conservation Trusts website :- https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/buildings-planning-and-development/lighting
The findings and conclusions presented above are based strictly on the evidence available at the time of the investigation. It is not possible for this site to rule out completely the possible presence of bats at some time in the future. All bat species, and their roost sites, are protected under the Wildlife Act, 1990. In the event that bats are encountered during the course of development works, then work must stop immediately and the staff at DEFA must be contacted for advice before proceeding.
Appendix 4 Durable house sparrow nest boxes as mitigation. House sparrows, being the gregarious birds, are social nesters, so it is necessary to set up at least three boxes to support a colony. Nest boxes should be at least 3 metres from the ground and protected from full sun or high winds. Position house sparrow boxes under the overhang of the roof.8
Mario dual chamber sparrow terrace (illustrated below)
8 Paraphrased from https://www.housesparrowscience.com/help-your-sparrows/
==== PAGE 56 ====
18 https://www.nhbs.com/dual-chamber-sparrow-terrace
Vivara Pro Woodstone house sparrow nest box https://www.nhbs.com/vivara-pro-woodstone-house-sparrow-nest- box?bkfno=210670&ad_id=2437
Nature Harmonie sparrow terrace https://www.wildcare.co.uk/nature-harmonie-sparrow.html
Schwegler 1SP sparrow terrace (grey)
==== PAGE 57 ====
19 https://www.wildcare.co.uk/sparrow-terrace.html
Habibat sparrow terrace suitable for brick structures https://www.wildcare.co.uk/habibat-sparrow-terrace.html
Appendix 5 Durable swift bricks as enhancement Wildlife Services - Woodstone Visible Build-in Swift Box to be inserted into walls
==== PAGE 58 ====
20 https://www.wildlifeservices.uk/product-page/woodstone-visible-build-in-swift-box-uk- brick-size Action for swifts - swift bricks for inserting into brick walls https://www.actionforswifts.com/ Wildcare - Schwegler 1A Lightweight Swift Nest Box https://www.wildcare.co.uk/schwegler-1a-lightweight-swift-10635.html
==== PAGE 59 ====
21
Appendix 6 Durable swallow nest cups as mitigation.
Wildcare swallow’s nest cup https://www.wildcare.co.uk/swallow-nest.html
Appendix 7 house martin nest cups for mitigation
Woodstone house martin double nester https://www.wildcare.co.uk/10678-woodstone-house-martin-nester.html
==== PAGE 60 ====
22
Appendix 8 Hedging shrubs for birds
The wildlife requirement for shrubs is primarily shrubs where house sparrows can socialise. Hedges and any other greenery that provides cover for the birds, such as bushes, shrubs, and small to medium trees are key for sparrow survival.9 The species recommended in Scotland and potentially applicable here although have their drawbacks are hawthorn - Crataegus monogyna, (prickly), blackthorn - Prunus spinosa, (prickly and it suckers), alder - Alnus glutinosa (large and needs water), wild privet - Ligustrum vulgare, and wild cherry Prunus avium (also large). House sparrows in Shore Road, Castletown use bay (Laurus nobilis), Escallonia (Escallonia macrantha) and plum trees/shrubs (Prunus spp)10.
9 https://www.housesparrowscience.com/help-your-sparrows/ 10 Personal observations of the author.
==== PAGE 61 ====
23
Escallonia flowers
Planting these species provides valuable cover, especially when escaping from sparrowhawks and for food (in the form of insects and berries) for house sparrows and other garden birds.
Some garden birds will nest in climbers. There are expanses of stone wall where climbers can be planted. Care should be taken that species which affect the wall structure (ivy - Hedera helix or Virginia creeper - Parthenocissus quinquifolia) are avoided or well managed. Other species such as clematis species (Clematis montana) are not a threat to structures but require a wire frame to grow on. These provide nectar sources for pollinators, moths and butterflies. Golden hop (Humulus lupulus ‘aureus’) is the foodplant for comma butterflies and dies back in winter.
Golden hop
==== PAGE 62 ====
24 This is a good website for plants to cover walls.11 Honeysuckle and espalier fruit (apples, pears and plums) are both good for wildlife. Climbing hydrangea (Hydrangea petiolaris) is attractive. Grape vines do grow outside, but will probably not produce fruit. Star jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides) will scent the air at night as well as attract beautiful moths.
Star jasmine
Other plants to attract diverse insects include Buddleia (Buddleia davidii), although that is potentially invasive as it self-sows and gets into stonework.
Bay trees can be grown in big pots
11 https://www.fassadengruen.de/en/climbing-plants.html
==== PAGE 63 ====
25 Appendix 9 Work plan to accommodate Wildlife Act requirements
==== PAGE 64 ====
Appendix 4 to Mitigation Plan for CCY November 2024. Island Biodiversity Consultant. Appendix 9 Work plan Precautionary working method statement
Works required to avoid disturbing Schedule 1 birds and Schedule 5 bats.
Ensuring precautionary working practices are followed.
Swifts, bats and house sparrows (specially protected). These actions apply to the eatery taproom building (A) unless otherwise stated.
Between approval from DEFA to go ahead and before 1st April 2025 or 2026.
==== PAGE 65 ====
Appendix 4 to Mitigation Plan for CCY November 2024. Island Biodiversity Consultant. 8. Order at least 6 stone-coloured swift bricks to be inserted later in the top course of the NE facing wall (enhancement).
1st May Until 15th August
By 1st May
1st May to 10th June
Mid June (10th to 20th)
1 Edward Mayer of Swift Conservation , Pers comm.
==== PAGE 66 ====
Appendix 4 to Mitigation Plan for CCY November 2024. Island Biodiversity Consultant. 2. Swifts require access to nests during daytime as well as at dusk. Most sensitive area of flight access is 7 m in front of nest holes. (building activity and vehicle movements acceptable, but not parking large vehicles).
Mid June to 15th August. If swifts are nesting in the NE wall a) works may proceed on the repointing of lower half of NE wall without use of mechanical tools (up to height which can be done standing on the ground). b) Buffer of 5m around protected nest hole(s) not to be touched during repointing.
If no swifts are nesting, prepare for young birds (2 or 3 year olds) nest prospecting a) Continue to observe careful avoidance of the 5m buffer round protected holes during the day when repointing.
Between 1st September and 1st April
At any time
Swallows and house martins (also protected from harm while nesting)
Before 1st April
2 Direct quote from Bat report.
==== PAGE 67 ====
Appendix 4 to Mitigation Plan for CCY November 2024. Island Biodiversity Consultant. 5. House martin cups to be attached below ends of purlins, (as above).
1st April to 30th August
Swallow porch
Nest facilities required 4 x triple woodstone sparrow terraces. https://www.birdfood.co.uk/woodstone- estella-house-sparrow-nest-box At least 6 stone-coloured swift bricks https://www.nhbs.com/woodstone-build-in- swift-nest-box-deep?bkfno=248390 Commission swallow porch - see below. 4 x durable house martin cups https://www.birdfood.co.uk/woodstone-house- martin-nest-single-right-entrance
==== PAGE 68 ====
Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 1/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard Installation : Project number : 21925 Customer : CEF IOM Processed by : B Archer Date : 16.12.2024 Project description: ALL FITTINGS LESS THAN 2% ULOR ALL FITTINGS WARM WHITE LUX LEVELS TO LOWEST GUIDE - TO BE CONFIRME- SLOW-MEDIUM TRAFFIC - 5-10LUX The following values are based on precise calculations performed on calibrated lamps and luminaires, and their configurations, whereby gradual, unavoidable deviations can occur in practice. All guarantee claims are excluded for the specified data. This exclusion of liability applies irrespective of the legal grounds for both damages and consequential damages suffered by users and third parties.
==== PAGE 69 ====
1 Room1 1.1 Description, Room1 1.1.1 Floor plan Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 2/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report -115 -105 -95 -85 -75 -65 -55 -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 x [m] 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 y [m]
==== PAGE 70 ====
1 Room1 1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.1 Result overview, Road + Car Spaces Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 3/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 x [m] 2 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 30 50 Illuminance [lx] General Calculation algorithm used Average indirect fraction Height of evaluation surface 0.00 m Maintenance factor 0.80 Total luminous flux 35500 lm Total power 320 W Total power per area (18494.86 m2) 0.02 W/m2 Illuminance Average illuminance E̅ m 9.49 lx Minimum illuminance Emin 2.74 lx Maximum illuminance Emax 68.3 lx Uniformity Uo Emin/E̅ m 1:3.47 (0.29) Diversity Ud Emin/Emax 1:25 (0.04) Type No.\Make Tamlite Lighting 1 8 x Order No. : CTRB200T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY RLB T4 Equipment : 1 x 23 W / 2000 lm 2 2 x Order No. : CWL280T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 19 W / 2800 lm
==== PAGE 71 ====
1 Room1 1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.1 Result overview, Road + Car Spaces Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 4/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report 3 5 x Order No. : !CWL160T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm 4 3 x Order No. : !CWL90T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 7 W / 900 lm 5 2 x Order No. : CWL160T2WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm
==== PAGE 72 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.2 Result overview, Road Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 5/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 x [m] 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 Illuminance [lx] General Calculation algorithm used Average indirect fraction Height of evaluation surface 0.00 m Maintenance factor 0.80 Total luminous flux 35500 lm Total power 320 W Total power per area (18494.86 m2) 0.02 W/m2 Illuminance Average illuminance E̅ m 11.6 lx Minimum illuminance Emin 3.98 lx Maximum illuminance Emax 29.2 lx Uniformity Uo Emin/E̅ m 1:2.93 (0.34) Diversity Ud Emin/Emax 1:7.33 (0.14) Type No.\Make Tamlite Lighting 1 8 x Order No. : CTRB200T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY RLB T4 Equipment : 1 x 23 W / 2000 lm 2 2 x Order No. : CWL280T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 19 W / 2800 lm
==== PAGE 73 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.2 Result overview, Road Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 6/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report 3 5 x Order No. : !CWL160T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm 4 3 x Order No. : !CWL90T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 7 W / 900 lm 5 2 x Order No. : CWL160T2WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm
==== PAGE 74 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.3 Result overview, Road + car spaces Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 7/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 x [m] 3 5 7.5 10 15 20 Illuminance [lx] General Calculation algorithm used Average indirect fraction Height of evaluation surface 0.00 m Maintenance factor 0.80 Total luminous flux 35500 lm Total power 320 W Total power per area (18494.86 m2) 0.02 W/m2 Illuminance Average illuminance E̅ m 10.4 lx Minimum illuminance Emin 3.25 lx Maximum illuminance Emax 23.6 lx Uniformity Uo Emin/E̅ m 1:3.19 (0.31) Diversity Ud Emin/Emax 1:7.25 (0.14) Type No.\Make Tamlite Lighting 1 8 x Order No. : CTRB200T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY RLB T4 Equipment : 1 x 23 W / 2000 lm 2 2 x Order No. : CWL280T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 19 W / 2800 lm
==== PAGE 75 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.3 Result overview, Road + car spaces Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 8/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report 3 5 x Order No. : !CWL160T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm 4 3 x Order No. : !CWL90T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 7 W / 900 lm 5 2 x Order No. : CWL160T2WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm
==== PAGE 76 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.4 Result overview, Measuring area 5 Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 9/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 x [m] 5 7.5 10 15 20 30 Illuminance [lx] General Calculation algorithm used Average indirect fraction Height of evaluation surface 0.00 m Maintenance factor 0.80 Total luminous flux 35500 lm Total power 320 W Total power per area (18494.86 m2) 0.02 W/m2 Illuminance Average illuminance E̅ m 14.9 lx Minimum illuminance Emin 6.96 lx Maximum illuminance Emax 43.8 lx Uniformity Uo Emin/E̅ m 1:2.14 (0.47) Diversity Ud Emin/Emax 1:6.29 (0.16) Type No.\Make Tamlite Lighting 1 8 x Order No. : CTRB200T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY RLB T4 Equipment : 1 x 23 W / 2000 lm 2 2 x Order No. : CWL280T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 19 W / 2800 lm
==== PAGE 77 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.4 Result overview, Measuring area 5 Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 10/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report 3 5 x Order No. : !CWL160T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm 4 3 x Order No. : !CWL90T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 7 W / 900 lm 5 2 x Order No. : CWL160T2WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm
==== PAGE 78 ====
Position 0.00 m Type No.\Make Tamlite Lighting 1 8 x Order No. : CTRB200T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY RLB T4 Equipment : 1 x 23 W / 2000 lm 2 2 x Order No. : CWL280T4WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 19 W / 2800 lm
==== PAGE 79 ====
1.2 Summary, Room1 1.2.5 Result overview, Evaluation area 1 Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 12/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report 3 5 x Order No. : !CWL160T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm 4 3 x Order No. : !CWL90T4WWB Luminaire name : CITY WL T4 Equipment : 1 x 7 W / 900 lm 5 2 x Order No. : CWL160T2WWG Luminaire name : CITY WL Equipment : 1 x 11 W / 1600 lm
==== PAGE 80 ====
1 Room1 1.3 Calculation results, Room1 1.3.1 3D luminance, View 1 Object Installation Project number Date : New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard : : 21925 : 16.12.2024 Ben Archer - Trainee Lighting Design Engineer - [email protected] Tamlite Lighting Page 13/13 21925 - New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard - Lighting Report Luminance in the scene Minimum: : 0 cd/m2 Maximum: : 92.2 cd/m2
==== PAGE 81 ====
15 ATHOL 12a 14 7 forecourt in out rear lane carwash bays EP LP LP LP LP RS PO PO PO PO Ellerslie Nurseries Nursery & Garaging 3 GARDENS S & S Garage, Fuel Station, Convenience Store & Workshop 6 7 ELLERSLIE GARDENS 12 1 2 Northcroft Apartments 4 5 MILNER TERRACE ALEXANDRA ROAD 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 5a THIS DRAWING MUST NOT BE SCALED ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE Project ID: TAMLITE LIGHTING Stafford Park 12 Telford TF3 3BJ 01952 292441 Notes: @A1 Project: Date: Scale: Drawn By: Drawing Ref: Revision: 0 Layout 1:200 BA 16/12/2024 New Brewery - Castletown Commissioners Yard 21925 1. All luminaires used are subject to approval/certification of client/end user. 2. Emergency lighting has been designed in accordance with BS5266-1:2016 but is an indicative layout only - additional lighting may be required. All emergency lighting is to be checked and confirmed with a local building/fire control officer and ultimately approved by the owner of the building. As no firefighting equipment has been indicated on the drawings it is to be noted that a standard emergency layout only has been adopted, an increased level WILL be required if firefighting equipment is to be lit correctly. 3. This drawing is for schematic purposes only and installation shall fully comply with BS7671 (or National equivalent) and the installation instructions supplied with the product. 4. The ambient temperature assumed for this project is +25°C, should this not be the case on site, please ensure you advise us as the luminaires offered may not be appropriate. 5. We have utilised a maintenance factor of 0.8 for this project. Reflectance values have been assumed as follows unless otherwise stated: (Office Type Interior): 70\50\20 (Warehouse Type Interior): 50\30\20 6. Final quantities are to be confirmed prior to an order/installation and we will not be held responsible for any errors or omissions. 7. Please ensure that this lighting scheme/layout complies with all requirements and if further details/calculations are required please contact us via the below details.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
