Beddington Lane Energy Recovery Facility

Transcription

1 Beddington Lane Energy Recovery Facility Bat Survey Report 31 October 2011 Produced for Prepared by Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NL M: E : Leonard.Griffiths@mouchel.com

2 Document Control Sheet Project Title Report Title Beddington Lane Energy Recovery Facility Bat Survey Report Revision 1 Status Final Control Date 31 October 2011 Record of Issue Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date 1 Final L. Griffiths 27/10/11 P. Joyce 31/10/11 A. Bascombe 31/10/11 Distribution Organisation Contact Copies i

3 This Report is presented to Viridor (SLWP) in respect of this Bat Survey Report and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this Report. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Ltd. is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Mouchel Ltd. shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly. This Report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise ii

4 Contents Document Control Sheet... i Contents... iii Tables... v Executive Summary... vi 1 Introduction Background Site location Proposed scheme Study area Survey aims and objectives Legislative and Conservation Policy Context Legislative context Conservation Status Methodology Desk study Field survey Overview Habitat suitability assessment Emergence/re-entry surveys Assessment methodology: determining biodiversity value Results and Evaluation Desk study Field survey iii

5 4.2.1 Habitat suitability assessment 10 Tree 1 (T1) 10 Tree 2 (T2) 10 Tree 3 (T3) Emergence/re-entry surveys of trees Field survey site summary Evaluation Biodiversity value of the study area for bats References Appendix 1: Figures Appendix 2: Photos iv

6 Tables Table Classification of bat roost potential for trees and buildings...6 Table Details of bat surveys...7 Table Bat records from within the study area from GIGL...9 Table Bat records from within the study area from NBN...9 Table Summary of activity survey data v

7 Executive Summary Scheme description and location Previous studies and background Current study Results and discussion Conclusions and recommendations Construction of an Energy Recovery Facility has been proposed at Viridor s waste management site located off Beddington Lane, Sutton in south London. Phase 1 habitat surveys undertaken in 2009 and updated in The surveys identified potential bat roosting sites (in trees) and foraging habitat within the Beddington Lane site Survey to determine whether trees on site support bat roosts and to value of the wider Beddington Lane site for bats. Three oak trees surveyed did not support bat roosts. Four bat species were identified foraging and commuting over the site. Overall, Beddington Lane is considered to be of district value to bats. Foraging habitat should be considered a valuable resource for bats in the wider area, which likely come to Beddington to feed. There are no roosts on the site and therefore bat resting sites should not be considered a constraint to development. vi

8 Bat Survey Report 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The South London boroughs of Croydon, Kingston, Merton and Sutton form a partnership known as the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP). The SLWP has been formed to procure a contractor to manage the disposal of residual waste within the borough s area. An Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) has been proposed to the SLWP as a potential option, and the site of an aggregate treatment facility at Beddington Lane within the Beddington Farmlands site has been proposed to house this. Mouchel was commissioned to provide ecological support to Viridor who plan to construct the new ERF. To support the development, ecological survey work was carried out to inform an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), with mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures proposed to offset significant negative impacts, and comply with nature conservation legislation and planning policy. This report presents the results of bat surveys carried out on three mature oak trees likely to be affected by the development proposals and to provide data for the scheme s EcIA. 1.2 Site location The proposed development site is located at Viridor s Beddington Lane waste management facility in Sutton, Greater London, within the Beddington Farmlands Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI) (Appendix 1, Figure 1a). It has a history of use as a waste management facility, with a large landfill currently operating in addition to waste processing and storage facilities with associated infrastructure and an aggregates processing and storage area run by Cemex (who extract gravel from the site). The remainder of the site comprises scrub, ruderal and open water habitats that have developed as the land uses on site have changed. 1.3 Proposed scheme The proposed ERF will occupy land currently forming the Cemex aggregate facility with access roads and other infrastructure crossing land to the east to meet Beddington Lane (Appendix 1, Figure 1b). The EfW will be operational for twenty years. Following this, the facility is to be decommissioned. The current waste management facility is subject to a decommissioning plan whereby the landfill will be capped, landscaped and a mixture of parkland habitat created. The EfW decommissioning is likely to be tied into these proposed plans. 1.4 Study area The study area for the bat surveys focused on a small area of broadleaved woodland and a pond immediately adjacent to the reception car park and the proposed new access road to the east of the reception car park. There are a number of ponds, lagoons and sludge beds located across this area and three mature oak trees were identified as offering potential for roosting bats. 1

9 Bat Survey Report In the wider context, connectivity exists to the site from Mitcham Common and Beddington Park to the north and the south respectively. 1.5 Survey aims and objectives The aim of the study was to reasonably determine the value of the study area for bats. To achieve this, the following objectives were set: To confirm presence or likely absence of roosting bats within trees to be directly or indirectly impacted by the scheme and; To identify bat species using the study area. The results from this survey would then be used to inform an impact assessment of the development and provide ecological recommendations. 2

10 Bat Survey Report 2 Legislative and Conservation Policy Context 2.1 Legislative context All bat species in England and Wales are fully protected through inclusion within Schedule II of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations Under this legislation they are given the status of a European protected species (EPS). This legislation makes it an offence to deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb bat species. For the purposes of this legislation disturbance has been defined as that likely to: Impair their ability to: (i) (ii) Survive, breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or, Hibernate or migrate. Affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of that species to which they belong. It is also an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of these species. It may be possible to apply for a licence from Natural England to allow activities that would otherwise be an offence under these Regulations. All bats are also partially protected in England and Wales through their inclusion in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it is using a place of rest or shelter and/or from being obstructed from entering such a place. This applies to individuals, but is subject to a number of defences, including if the disturbance was the incidental result of a lawful operation that could not reasonably have been avoided. No licences are available for the purposes of development for offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 2.2 Conservation Status There are currently 18 species of bat present (17 of which are breeding) in the UK. It is widely recognised that all bats species, arguably with the exception of Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii, are declining and considered vulnerable throughout England and the rest of Europe (Mitchell-Jones, 2004). Consequently, certain bats are listed as UK and London and Sutton Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species. There are seven bat species listed as UK BAP Priority Species: barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein's Bat Myotis bechsteinii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros. The London BAP Priority Species list includes: 3

11 Bat Survey Report Bats (generic). The Sutton Biodiversity Partnership includes: Bats (all species) SAP: The Species Action Plan was developed for all seventeen species of bat, as general requirements and conservation issues are similar for all London s bat species. Sutton s HAPs have taken bats into account and through their implementation seek to maintain and enhance roosting, breeding and feeding sites throughout the Borough. By virtue of Section 74 CROW Act 2000 and Section 40 NERC Act 2006, all public authorities are obliged to take steps to further the conservation status of species of conservation concern in England. These species of conservation concern are taken as priority BAP species (section 74(4) CROW Act 2000). 4

12 Bat Survey Report 3 Methodology 3.1 Desk study The following sources were used in order to collate historical records of bats within the study area and a 1km radius: National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway; Previous studies and surveys of the site; and, Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL). 3.2 Field survey Overview Bat surveys were recommended following a desk study and extended Phase 1 habitat survey; undertaken in April 2009 and subsequently updated in This work identified habitats potentially suitable for supporting roosting, commuting and foraging bats within land affected by the scheme. Field survey techniques, timing, effort and the sampling regime to be used were selected with consideration of the guidance provided in Mitchell-Jones (2004) and the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT 2007), to determine occupancy of habitats by bats, and provide data for an assessment of potential impacts. Photos of key site features are found in Appendix Habitat suitability assessment A walkover of the site was undertaken in May 2011 to confirm the status of previously identified potential roost sites, foraging habitat and navigational routes for bats that may be impacted by the scheme. Features that could support roosts (including splits, cracks, and woodpecker holes) were confirmed on the three trees previously identified as offering roosting potential. The trees were surveyed externally using high-powered torches and an endoscope to illuminate and investigate all areas thought to be suitable for roosting bats. This included searching for bats in-situ, as well as signs that may indicate use of the structure. These signs include: bat droppings that are dry and do not putrefy, but can crumble away to dust; staining/scratching of access points used by bats to enter the tree; and feeding remains such as moth wings or spiders Where possible, cracks and crevices thought suitable for use by bats were inspected using binoculars to give a clear view of locations of cracks and crevices and/or staining. An overall assessment as to the suitability of the trees and surrounding habitat for roosting bats was made on the basis of findings and desk study data. This 5

13 Bat Survey Report assessment followed survey and assessment guidelines published by the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT, 2007), which are summarised in Table 3.1 below. Table Classification of bat roost potential for trees and buildings. Category Low Moderate High Features Two or less minor opportunities for individual bats, such as small cracks. Features in this category contain only a small number of potentially suitable roosting sites. This includes modern, well maintained structures that are disturbed often and provide few opportunities for access by bats Features that provide a more secure roost for small groups of bats and individuals, such as dense ivy, significant holes and small cavities. Features of particular significance, such as large cavities, extensive roof voids and large number of access points that offer a diversity of opportunity, suitable for high priority roosts for a large number of bats, such as maternity roosts. The use of trees by bats can be complex and will vary throughout the year to meet the needs of their annual lifecycle. Structures can be used in a number of ways, as different types of roosts have different purposes in relation to the bat lifecycle; Gathering roosts in spring used by breeding females; Maternity/nursery roosts where females give birth and rear young in summer; Day roosts used in summer by individuals or small groups of males and/or non breeding females; Overnight stopping/feeding roosts for resting and feeding; Transitional roosts used for short periods during spring and autumn; Mating/swarming roosts where males and females congregate during autumn and Hibernation roosts used by bats to over-winter. Once a bat roost has been identified, it should then be classified in accordance to one these roost types listed above. Linear landscape features and habitats such as road verges, embankments, ditches and hedgerows were also identified and assessed for their potential to support commuting bats. Landscapes with a good diversity of semi-natural habitats that could provide bats with an important foraging resource, sheltered conditions and good flight lines are particularly important for a number of bat species (English Nature 2004) Emergence/re-entry surveys An evening emergence survey was carried out on 31 st May 2011 to observe bats emerging from the trees. This was followed by two dawn swarming surveys, on the 6

14 Bat Survey Report 1 st June and 28 th June, to identify any bats returning to the trees after the nights foraging. These surveys followed guidelines produced by Natural England (Natural England, 2004) and the latest Bat Conservation Trust guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007).The emergence survey started approximately 30 minutes before sunset and continued until two hours after sunset, with an ecologist equipped with bat detectors situated at potential exit points of the relevant trees. Dawn return surveys (looking for swarming bats re-entering their roost) were carried out two hours prior to sun rise and aimed to identify any bats returning to roost. For all bats encountered either leaving or returning to the trees, notes were made regarding the likely species (where this could be determined from calls), and any behaviour that could be seen (e.g. direction and height of flight) or heard (e.g. feeding buzzes or social calls). Weather conditions including temperature were also recorded. During both the emergence and return surveys, observations were supplemented with digital recordings from Batbox Duet bat detectors and data from automated bat detectors. Recorded data were analysed using BatScan (V9) software for frequency division recordings, and data from automated detectors were analysed on AnalookW. Species identification was guided by Russ (1999).The surveys were completed during May and June (see Table 3.2) which is within the optimal period to complete such work (BCT 2007). Table Details of bat surveys. Survey Type Survey Date Weather Sunset/rise Time Emergence survey 31 May o C, dry, clear, still 21:07 Re-entry survey 1 June o C, dry, clear, still 04:50 Re- entry survey 28 June o C, dry, clear, still 04: Assessment methodology: determining biodiversity value The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines (2006) provide a framework criteria for determining the value and importance of each potential ecological receptor found within the survey area. Various characteristics can be used to identify important biodiversity features (sites, habitats, and species) that are likely to represent potentially significant constraints to the development project. These include a feature s: Rarity at various geographical scales; Threat status and vulnerability at various geographical scales; Diversity and/or its synergistic associations; Population size; and Location in relation to its known geographical distribution and range at various geographical scales. 7

15 Bat Survey Report The characteristics listed above help define a features conservation status which can then be used to help determine its biodiversity value. IEEM (2006) provides further information on how the relative value and importance of a receptor can be determined and states that its biodiversity value should be measured against published selection criteria where available. It is also useful to distinguish between the biodiversity value of a receptor and its legal status. Features of high biodiversity value may not necessarily attract legal protection and vice versa. For example, a viable area of ancient woodland is likely to be considered of high biodiversity value even if it does not receive any formal statutory designations. In the evaluation of biodiversity value, reference is also made to UK and Local BAPs, inclusion on national or county Red Data Books, and to conservation status (such as nationally notable/scarce, etc). However, the inclusion within a BAP reflects the fact that the population of the species/habitat concerned is in a sub-optimal state (and hence that conservation action is required) and does not necessarily imply any specific level of value. Despite this, priority BAP species/habitats may represent a significant ecological constraint if their presence triggers planning guidance implications (as outlined above). In accordance with IEEM (2006), each biodiversity feature should be assessed as valuable, or potentially valuable, based on the following geographic frame of reference (some examples of ecological receptors that may be potentially valuable at each geographical scale are provided below): International e.g. biodiversity feature that warrant designation of an area as a SPA, SAC, or Ramsar site; National (i.e. UK), e.g. biodiversity feature that warrants designation of an area as a SSSI; Regional, e.g. biodiversity features valuable at a regional level; County, e.g. biodiversity features valuable at a county level; District, e.g. biodiversity features of value at the district level; Local, e.g. biodiversity features of value in a local (i.e. parish or within ~5km of the scheme extent) context; Biodiversity features of value within and immediately surrounding the field survey area. 8

16 Wintering Bird Survey Report 4 Results and Evaluation 4.1 Desk study A desk study received from GiGL identified five species of bats within 1km of the proposed development site since This data is summarised in Table 4.1. Table Bat records from within the study area from GIGL. Species Date Grid Reference Serotine Eptisicus serotinus 06/08/2000 TQ (South) Daubentons Myotis daubentonii 05/05/2000 TQ (South) Noctule Nyctalus noctula 31/08/2000 TQ (South) Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 31/08/2000 TQ (South) 11/08/2000 TQ (South) Distance and bearing to Scheme (m) A search of NBN website revealed five species of bats: common pipistrelle, Daubenton s bat, noctule, serotine Eptesicus serotinus and soprano pipistrelle to be present within 10km of the site since These are summarised in Table 4.2. Table Bat records from within the study area from NBN. Species Date Grid Reference Distance to Scheme (km) Serotine 24/7/2010 TQ3461 Within same 10km 2 as scheme Serotine 27/7/2007 TQ3061 Within same 10km 2 as scheme Serotine 30/7/2009 TQ3965 Within same 10km 2 as scheme Daubentons 20/08/2010 TQ3065 Within 1.2km west of scheme Noctule 30/07/2009 TQ3965 Within same 10km 2 as scheme Noctule 28/07/2010 TQ Within same 10km 2 as scheme Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Common pipistrelle 23/07/2008 TQ3567 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 24/07/2010 TQ3461 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 19/07/2007 TQ3061 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 30/07/2009 TQ3965 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 9

17 Wintering Bird Survey Report Species Date Grid Reference Distance to Scheme (km) Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle 28/07/2010 TQ Within same 10km 2 as scheme 24/07/2010 TQ3461 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 30/07/2009 TQ3965 Within same 10km 2 as scheme 28/07/2010 TQ Within same 10km 2 as scheme A previous study carried out by MKA Ecology limited confirmed the presence of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, unidentified pipistrelle species, noctule, serotine, leislers Nyctalus leisleri, daubentons and unidentified Myotis species around the site. 4.2 Field survey Habitat suitability assessment An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in 2009 and subsequently updated in 2010 which identified three trees with bat roost potential, as well as areas offering potential commuting and foraging habitat. Please see the Phase 1 Habitat Survey reports for further detail (Mouchel 2010). In summary, a network of footpaths, tree lines, standing water and areas of scrub were noted within the proposed site. These areas provide potential foraging and commuting corridors for bats, particularly where there are linear features with scrub vegetation mosaics and alongside sludge pits and associated riparian habitat. These linear features also connect other areas in the wider context such as the Mitcham Common to the north and Beddington Park to the south. Tree 1 (T1) This mature oak tree (Photo 1) was located adjacent to the entry road to the site alongside a scrub lined ditch which was dry at the time of survey and a pond immediately to the south. An external inspection identified a number of gaps in the bark of the tree (Photos 2). Potential roosting places were checked thoroughly wherever possible. No obvious staining or signs of likely bat presence were noted during the daytime survey. Nevertheless, given the age and condition of the tree and its sheltered position adjacent to the ditch, ponds and tree line, the potential to support roosting bats was considered moderate. Tree 2 (T2) This tree (Photo 3) was the largest and oldest of those surveyed and was located within an area of scrub adjacent to a dirt track and open sludge beds to the east. This tree offered a number of potential roosting points with particular attention paid to 10

18 Wintering Bird Survey Report a cracked branch within the crown of the tree (Photo 4). An old disused bird box was also noticed attached to the main trunk of this oak tree. Given the age and location of this tree within the site, adjacent to good foraging and commuting opportunities, the potential to support roosting bats was considered moderate. Tree 3 (T3) This mature oak (Photo 5) was located along an old disused entrance track to the east of the site. Open sludge beds and associated scrub habitat was located adjacent to the tree to the north with open pasture utilised by horses located immediately adjacent to the south. The tree itself offered potential roosting points along open branch splits and old bark. No obvious signs of recent bat activity were noted during the daytime survey. However as the tree is located along a field boundary and is situated adjacent to good foraging areas, this increases the likelihood that it will be found by prospecting bats and as such was considered to offer moderate roost potential Emergence/re-entry surveys of trees Surveys were undertaken during suitable weather conditions - warm and without strong winds. One surveyor monitored each of the trees during the emergence and return surveys at vantage points thought to maximise coverage of potential roost exit points (Appendix 1, Figure 2). Bat activity was noted around all three trees during survey 1 and 3. Activity was limited to tree 2 only during survey 2. The first bat pass recorded during survey 1 occurred at 21:44pm and was identified as a soprano pipistrelle. This contact occurred 47 minutes following sunset. Both foraging behaviour and social calls were noted particularly around tree 2, along the path and over the sludge beds. Activity levels were lower around tree 1 and tree 2. No bats were seen exiting or re-entering potential roosts within the three mature trees on site. These trees therefore do not currently support bat roosts. A summary of the survey results is shown in Table 4.4. Table Summary of activity survey data. Survey / Tree Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Number of bat passes recorded Pipistrelle Noctule Myotis Unspecies sp identified TOTAL Survey 1: 31/05/11 Tree Tree

19 Wintering Bird Survey Report Survey / Tree Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Number of bat passes recorded Pipistrelle Noctule Myotis Unspecies sp identified TOTAL Tree Survey 2: 01/06/11 Tree Tree Tree Survey 3: 28/06/11 Tree Tree Tree Field survey site summary The surveys found no evidence of bats roosting within the survey area. At least three bat species were identified during the surveys including: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, and noctule bats. In addition Myotis sp. were also detected during survey 2. Myotis bats were not identified to species level as positive identification of these species is difficult without visual observation of behaviour in combination with recordings, however given the habitat around which the recordings were made; it is likely that the species is Daubenton s. Pipistrelle species were recorded on almost all survey visits to each tree and were more prevalent around the centre of the survey site commuting and foraging along the dirt track and over the sludge beds in this location. Noctule and Myotis sp. were also present in fluctuating levels of contact, particularly around tree 2. Common and soprano pipistrelles are widespread and common throughout Britain. Noctule bats are thought to be generally uncommon but more numerous in well wooded areas, whilst Myotis sp. bats vary from widespread and common (Daubenton s), widespread and fairly common (Natterer s), widespread and locally common (Whiskered and Brandts bat Myotis mystacinus/myotis brandtii ) and restricted and very rare (Bechsteins) (BCT, 2009). The surveys revealed that common and soprano pipistrelles and a number of other species are present around the survey area and especially in habitats adjacent to the sludge pits, particularly the scrub and ruderal found throughout the site. Other areas of importance for foraging include the adjacent riparian habitat located around the pits. Important areas of activity included high levels of foraging and social behaviour around Tree 2, with particular activity from Myotis and noctule bats in and around this area. No bats were noted swarming or emerging from trees/ structures during 12

20 Wintering Bird Survey Report surveys, however due to the relatively short delay between the onset of dusk and the bats appearance during the survey, it is presumed that the bats originate from a roost situated near to the scheme. 4.4 Evaluation No evidence of the presence of a bat roost within the three trees was found during either nocturnal survey or from preliminary desk study data. Following the daytime survey, the trees were classed as offering moderate roost potential respectively. However the lack of evidence to support bat presence following the emergence and return surveys would suggest that the trees are not currently used for roosting purposes and that it is reasonable to assume there will be no adverse impact upon roosting bats as a result of the proposed works. This is further supported by the behaviour of bats observed during surveys which indicate a roost away from the site. 4.5 Biodiversity value of the study area for bats The survey area and its associated trees, hedgerows, scrub and areas of open standing water was considered to be of bat functional interest as relatively high levels of bat activity were recorded commuting and foraging around these features. The data indicates that the overall site may be of importance as a linkage to the surrounding areas as it is directly used by a number of different species to commute to sites to the south and north and forage. Given the activity levels identified during the surveys and that the site is utilised by at least four different species for foraging and social behaviours, the assessment for the site and its likely supporting importance it is considered to be of a biodiversity value at the District level. The Beddington Farmlands SMI is situated within a heavily urbanised location and therefore considered to be a vital resource for bats in the south London area. 13

21 Wintering Bird Survey Report We have used our reasonable endeavours to provide information that is correct and accurate and have discussed above the reasonable conclusions that can be reached on the basis of the information available. 14

22 Wintering Bird Survey Report 5 References Bat Conservation Trust (BCT). (2007). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. BCT, London. Bat Conservation Trust, (2009). The National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report JNCC. IEEM, (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Mouchel, (2010). Phase 1 Habitat Survey for Beddington Lane Energy Recovery Facility. Beddington Lane, Sutton, London. Russ (1999). The Bats of Britain and Ireland. Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and Species Identification. Alana Books. 15

23 Wintering Bird Survey Report Appendix 1: Figures 16

24 A B Legend Beddington Farmlands SMI owned by Viridor Study Area Area (ha) Beddington Farmland SMI owned by Viridor 98.8 EFR Development Footprint 5.4 This map is produced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. A First Issue 31/10/11 DK Version Amendment Drawing Date 31/10/11 EP Checked Date 31/10/11 PJ Approved Date Proposed ERF Footprint Client Viridor Scale (at A3 size) N/A South London Waste PFI Purpose of Issue Information Office Tel Drawing Number Figure 1: Study Area Map Blackfriars SA

25 Oak Tree 2! Oak Tree 1! E E E Oak Tree 3! Legend D Surveyor viewpoint! Oak Tree Proposed ERF Footprint Beddington Farmlands SMI owned by Viridor Client This map is produced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Viridor South London Waste PFI A First Issue 31/10/11 DK Version Amendment Drawing Date Scale (at A3 size) Purpose of Issue Office Tel Drawing Number Figure 2: Bat Survey Map Woking Checked Date N/A BAT 31/10/11 EP Information 31/10/11 PJ Approved Date

26 Wintering Bird Survey Report Appendix 2: Photos Photo 1 Oak tree 1 Photos 2 Features suitable for use by roosting bats in oak tree 1 17

27 Wintering Bird Survey Report Photo 3 Oak Trees 2 Photo 4 Features suitable for roosting bats in oak tree 2 18

28 Wintering Bird Survey Report Photo 5 Oak tree 3 19