Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
Have just had two very similar conversations with two ecologists regarding alterations to Listed Buildings.
Without wishing to make it too site specific, the question revolved around the issue of whether alterations could be made to make a Listed Building either more suitable or create an environment which might encourage wildlife use. The structures currently have little or no use in one case. The question of initial damge may be quite easily overcome (for some bats access points can be made by the removal of 2-3cm sections of mortar) so I am fairly comfortable with at least explaining that the effect on the outside of the structure will be minimal and visually almost neutral. What I am less certain about is the measure of long term impact of bats or birds on the building itself. Has anyone received LBC application covering something like this (would a maintainance plan by best produced?) or would curators see this as generally outside the bounds of LBC?
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Greetings sire.Can we have mitigation that includes 40cm appertures to accommodate passing badgers too? The furry type I might add.
On a more interesting note, if one is considering the active encouragement of wildlife in an architectural context, would not the architect of such a scheme be deemed legally responsible should the welfare of said wildlife (if protected by law) be compromised by any oversights or future changes?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
hence the possibility of a maintainance plan. Apparently the Habitats Directive (1994) protects the species in question, and also their roosts; so fair point, but would this be additional protection for the building???? [?]:face-huh:
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
My concern would be for the protection of the building fabric internally. Guano can cause significant damage to wooden floors and beams. A maintenance plan should include provision for cleaning this up from time to time, if this can be done without affecting the species concerned. This may require timetabling to ensure that any such works will be carried out outside mating/breeding seasons etc.
A lot depends on the specifics of the building in question, its plan, layout, age and accessibility.
In my experience, environmental (ie. species protection) legislation outweighs archaeological protection. This is probably for political reasons. For instance archaeological work has often been delayed or modified by the need to protect certain nesting species or particular habitats; it is much rarer for a species to be allowed to be killed off or relocated to permit archaeological works.
In the long term, provided the fabric of the building is adequately protected, the presence of roosting creatures is likely to improve the chances of its long term protection.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
Thanks Paul. That was my feeling, and also I share the concerns about the cleaning too. Apparently bat guanno is marginally less corrosive[xx(]. Case studies would be handy if anyone has them...
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
English Heritage published a leaflet about as I put it "bats in the belfry" and the impact of in particular bat urine which is acidic on Church features.
My concern about encouraging the use of redundant/derelict buildings as habitats is that this may decrease the chance of a beneficial use and/or increase the cost of conversion. Ultimately it may help turn the buildings into ruins in the long term.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Are we talking about redundant buildings or those undergoing conversion or restoration for further use?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
For the purposes of this hypothetical discussion I would like to hear about both. I think the issue hangs on whether the structure was suitable or is being made suitable. If bats are already present, there is precious little that a humble archaeologists can do to remove them, though the spectre of alternative habitats can sometimes be used.
I'm not sure that I could convincingly (or even ethically) argue the case for a management plan which would result in the deterioration of a Listed Building, and I would hope that the curator involved would object to that option if it was presented.
Incidentally, the EH paper is here:
http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads...church.pdf
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Howzabout the potential for health risks relating to future Human occupants of said buildings? Would an incoming owner/rent-payer of such be legally accountable for the welfare of the animal tenents?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Generalities on this - differnt bats have different requirements at different times of year - there are breeeding and nursery sites, winter hibernating sites etc - some bat roosts are almost unbelievably small 0 the gaps betwen roof tiles for example.
for birds, the most common use is probbly owls in barns - these can be accomodated in conversions by fitting an owl box - it must be fitted in such a way that it can be accessed occasionally for cleaning out, other wise it can become fairly verminous.
I would advise discussing buildings and wildlife on a case by case basis with the appropriately qualified ecologists - if the integrity or long term futrture of the building may be compromised then don't do it, if the buildlng will happily accomodate four species of bats, three owls and a small family of badgers in the roof space without damage then go ahead.
