Amen Corner, Bracknell Bat Survey Report

Transcription

1 Amen Corner, Bracknell Bat Survey Report October 2010

2

3 Client Job ame Report title ike Design Ltd Amen Corner Bat Survey Report File reference _X004_Amen Corner Bat Report 2010 Signed ame Position Date Originated Karen Lunan Senior Ecologist 02/09/2010 Reviewed Sian Mitchell Principal Ecologist 20/10/2010 ISSUIG OFFICE: Worton Rectory Park Oxford OX29 4SX TEL: FAX: Web: Offices in: Bakewell, Oxford, Berwick-upon-Tweed & Monmouth Registered in: Cardiff o. OC Registered address: Arden House Deepdale Business Park Ashford Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1GT Members: A list of members is available at each office.

4

5 Report Contents 1 Introduction Site Description and Site Context Proposed Works Aims of Study Methodology Desk Study Field Survey Building Assessment Bat Tree Roost Assessment Tree Climbing Inspections Bat Activity Surveys Results Desk Study Bat Records Field Survey Building Assessment Bat Tree Roost Assessment Tree Climbing Inspections Bat Activity Surveys Discussion Constraints on Study Information Desk Study Building Assessment Bat Tree Roost Assessment Tree Climbing Inspections Bat Activity Surveys Assessment Bat Roosts in Buildings Bat Roosts in Trees Bat Activity Assessment Conclusion Legislation and Policy Guidance Bats Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and ature Conservation (PPS9) Potential Impacts Disturbance, Killing and Injury Roost Loss Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Recommendations Further Survey Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement Measures Avoidance of Disturbance, Killing and Injury Habitat and Roost Creation _X004_Amen Corner Bat Report 2010 i

6 6 Summary References Appendices Appendix 1: Building Survey Results Appendix 2: Bat Tree Roost Assessment Results Appendix 3: Tree Climbing Inspection Results Appendix 4: Sonograms of Bat Species Figures Figure Figure Figure _X004_Amen Corner Bat Report 2010 ii

7 1 Introduction 1.1 Site Description and Site Context The Amen Corner site, which is approximately hectares in extent and is centred on OS Grid Reference of SU842688, is located on the western edge of the town of Bracknell, Berkshire. The majority of the site is characterised by gently rolling pasture farmland with defunct hedges, some of which support mature trees (particularly oak, with more localised alder and ash). There are no extensive areas of standing water, and drainage ditches, where present, are highly seasonal. The area is no longer actively farmed, and in the absence of deer and rabbit grazing (and occasional localised scrub clearance) would rapidly succeed to blackthorn, bracken and bramble scrub. The westernmost field, which has been used historically as a landfill site, is the most heavily scrub encroached. Additional land uses within the site boundary include a substantial area of hard standing (supporting a number of small businesses) towards the southern site boundary, a block of ancient semi-natural woodland (Riggs Copse) and a currently disused golf driving range. In addition, there are two rows of occupied terraced houses, orth and South View, and a number of additional detached and semi-detached residential properties. Derelict buildings include a complex of barns and outhouses at Rose Farm and Lynfield House (and some adjacent chicken sheds). Parts of the site close to the Coppid Beech Hotel are used for storage of construction materials, and there is occasional fly tipping and widespread small scale littering, particularly around the western boundary. The regular use of the fields by motorcross bikes has resulted in the creation of wide tracks. The site boundary is largely demarcated by existing roads and other built development: to the north of the site the B3408 Old London Road (a four-lane carriageway) and John ike Way; to the south-west the A329 Berkshire Way; to the south the Reading to London Waterloo train line (and the A329 beyond this) and; to the east Beehive Road which marks the westerly edge of urban Bracknell. Several other small land parcels fall between the site boundary and the local road network, including a recreational area and balancing pond owned by Hewlett Packard (to the south-east of the site) and a water works (owned by South East Water) to the north of the site. Beyond the immediate road network, land to the north, west and south of the site comprises agricultural areas and scattered woodland, although some of this area is subject to residential development (Jennett s Park). Big Wood, an extensive area of semi-natural woodland, lies on the southern side of the railway line and the A329. As a result of this surrounding development, the site is relatively ecologically isolated from semi-natural habitats in the wider area. 1.2 Proposed Works The adopted Amen Corner Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides the framework through which the site will be taken forward for development. The document is available in full at the following link: The SPD indicates that the Amen Corner Site should aim to deliver a comprehensive, sustainable mixed-use development which will integrate with the existing residential, business and leisure opportunities that exist in the wider area. The development should comprise the provision of: at least 725 dwellings including affordable housing; up to 35,000 sqm. of employment and leisure floor space; a local centre; an improved transport network; a new primary school and; Page 1

8 community and recreational facilities including the provision of open space. Within the SPD, there is a requirement to create a Suitable Area of atural Greenspace (SAG), which is likely to take in Rigg s Copse (within the site boundary) and the nearby Big Wood. This will be managed with both recreation and nature conservation objectives. In addition, there is a requirement for the provision of areas of atural Greenspace and habitat corridors through the developed area. 1.3 Aims of Study A Phase 1 Survey conducted in February 2010 identified a range of habitats and features within the site boundary with potential to support bats. As a result, further detailed surveys were recommended to identify (i) buildings and trees with potential for bat roosting; and (ii) features used by bats for foraging and commuting. Following these surveys the bat survey programme has developed iteratively, with particular reference to the emerging Masterplan and the indicative design and information contained within the (adopted) Amen Corner SPD. This report identifies the bat species using the site, assesses the importance of the habitat features present within the site for foraging and commuting bats and the potential for bat roosts to occur within the site. The findings are reported and an assessment made on the potential impacts on bats and their habitat as a result of the proposed development. Recommendations for further surveys and mitigation measures are also outlined. The report is considered to represent a suitable baseline for an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) for the site. 2 Methodology 2.1 Desk Study Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) were contacted in March 2010 to undertake a data search to obtain existing records on legally protected and notable species within 2km of SU In addition, the South Bucks and Berks Bat Group were contacted for any bat records within a 3km x 3km square surrounding grid reference SU Field Survey The surveys were undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines (BCT, 2007) and followed an iterative approach where findings from surveys informed the basis for further survey work. The external building survey identified those buildings to be targeted by the internal building surveys. Similarly, the initial assessment of trees for bat roost potential informed those trees that should be targeted by further detailed climbing inspections. Finally the results of the building and tree surveys identified areas of habitat within the site that should be targeted by activity surveys Building Assessment An external survey of the buildings within the site boundary was undertaken by Karen Lunan MIEEM, holder of atural England bat licence no on the 7 th and 8 th April Following the external survey of the buildings, those identified with no or limited potential to support bat roosts were scoped out for the internal building survey. As the majority of the buildings within the site boundary are within private ownership, permission for access during the internal bat survey was requested by ike Group in the form of a letter and followed up by bat surveyors knocking on residents doors. Those buildings where access was permitted were subject to internal survey of loft spaces for evidence of bats. The internal bat surveys of buildings were led by Karen Lunan MIEEM, (with health and safety support from Owain Gabb MIEEM and Mark Craker of ike Group) on 4 th and 5 th August The weather conditions during the survey visits are summarised in Table 1 below. Page 2

9 Table 1: Weather Conditions during Survey Visits Date Weather Conditions 7 th April 2010 Overcast with intermittent drizzle 8 th April 2010 Sunny, clear with temperatures around 15 o C 4 th August 2010 Overcast with showers, temperatures around 16 o C 5 th August 2010 Sunny, clear with temperatures around 17 o C The surveys were undertaken according to good practice guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007). During the external inspection, particular attention was paid to the windows, roofs, walls and eaves of buildings where access was possible, using a powerful torch and binoculars where necessary. The internal inspection of those buildings to which access was obtained involved searching within loft spaces for evidence of the presence of bats including: droppings, characteristic staining, scratch marks, feeding remains, live and dead bats, and potential and actual bat access points into the buildings or structures Bat Tree Roost Assessment The survey was undertaken by Karen Lunan MIEEM (bat licence no ) on the 7 th and 8 th April The weather conditions are described in Table 1 above. All mature trees and groups of mature trees within the site boundary that will be directly affected by the development proposals were assessed for their potential to support bat roosts. An inspection of the trees was undertaken from ground level, using close-focussing binoculars and a powerful torch. During the survey, an assessment was made of the potential for the trees to shelter roosting bats including features such as deep rot holes, lifting or flaking bark, cracks, woodpecker holes or dense ivy. Dense ivy can create crevices between the stem of the ivy and the trunk of the tree but it can also obscure cracks or holes on the trunk and limbs. Therefore, the presence of dense ivy can increase the potential that a tree has to support roosting bats. In addition, observations were made for any evidence of the presence of bats including: droppings, characteristic staining and scratch marks around potential bat access points. Roost potential was measured as high, medium, low or negligible, according to criteria defined in Table 2 below. Table 2: Criteria for assessing bat roosting potential of trees Tree Features o cracks, splits, loose bark, hollow in trunk, holes or ivy Light ivy or any of the above but in an isolated situation without surrounding trees or hedges Heavy ivy and or presence of downward developing holes in a wooded situation or close to hedges Trees next to hedges or in a wooded situation with upward developing holes and or loose bark, splits, hollows, woodpecker holes Level of potential o/negligible potential Low potential Medium potential High potential Tree Climbing Inspections In accordance with best practice guidelines (BCT, 2007), those trees identified as having medium or high potential to support bats during the initial bat tree roost assessment were surveyed during detailed climbed inspections. The surveys were carried out by Guy Miller MIEEM with assistance from ecologists Lindy Smith and Martin Derbyshire. All surveyors are qualified tree climbers and Guy Miller and Martin Derbyshire hold atural England scientific survey licences for bats (bat licence no and respectively). The surveys were undertaken on four visits on the 3 rd, 4 th, 18 th and 19 th August The weather during the surveys was generally fine with the exception of 4 th August which was sunny with occasional heavy rain showers. Page 3

10 During the surveys the trees were climbed using ropes. Tree features with potential to support roosting bats such as cavities, splits and woodpecker holes, as identified during the bat tree roost assessment, were subject to detailed visual checks for signs of bats such as droppings, feeding remains, staining, scratch marks. A torch and endoscope were used to assist the survey where necessary Bat Activity Surveys Three bat activity surveys were undertaken at the site at dusk on 13 th May, 16 th June and 5 th August 2010, in accordance with good practice survey guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007). Survey timings and weather conditions are summarised in Table 3 below. The surveys were led by Karen Lunan MIEEM (bat licence no ), Helen Evriviades MIEEM (bat licence no ) with assistance from Stuart Whyte and Owain Gabb MIEEM and Alan Vowler of ike group. Table 3: Activity Survey conditions Date Time Sunset Weather Conditions 13 th May Wind Beaufort scale 1, cloud 5/8, dry with temperatures 11 o C at dusk 16 th June Wind Beaufort scale 3, cloud 1/8, dry with temperatures 15 o C at dusk 5 th August 2010 On each survey visit, the site was walked along a pre-determined transect route by 2 surveyors. The transect routes focused on areas offering the highest potential bat foraging, commuting or roosting habitat, such as hedgerows with mature trees, woodland, grass field margins and buildings. The walked transects comprised stops of 3 minutes during which notes were made on the bat species heard and seen, including time, location and, where possible, direction of flight. The surveyors were equipped with heterodyne and/or time-expansion detectors (Batbox Duet and/or Pettersson) to listen to calls in the field. Anabat detectors connected to a GPS were used to log accurate co-ordinates for recorded bat passes and the survey route. On the first two surveys, bat calls from the Pettersson detector were recorded by an mp3 recorder (Zoom H2) to confirm recordings made by the Anabat detector, Prior to use, all Anabats were calibrated to ensure that the sensitivity of the units to bat calls was equal. Subsequent to survey work, data was analysed using Analook (Anabat detector) and BatSound (Pettersson-Duet detector) software. 3 Results 3.1 Desk Study Bat Records Wind Beaufort scale 1, cloud 3/8, dry with temperatures 17 o C at dusk The bat records held by TVERC are presented in table 4 below. The distance of the records from the site is also shown. The nearest bat record to the site is for Pipistrelle species Pipistrellus sp. from Popeswood 600m northeast of the site. Table 4: Records of protected species within 2 km of site Common ame Latin ame Date Grid Ref. Distance from Bat (unident sp) Chiroptera 2005 SU m site Page 4

11 Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus 1995 SU m Myotis sp. Myotis sp SU Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus sp SU m Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus sp SU m Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus sp SU m Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus sp SU m Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrellus sp SU m The South Bucks and Berks Bat Group hold no records of bats within a 3km x 3km grid square of SU Field Survey Building Assessment The site comprises a number of residential buildings along orth View and South View and Moor Lane, a derelict Farm known as Rose Farm, several buildings owned by ike Design including The Bungalow and Karthia on orth View and unoccupied Lynfield House on London Road. In addition, in the southern part of the site, there are a series of workshops, garages and sheds within an area known as Scott s land. The buildings and their features are described in brief below and Table 5 below summarises the building assessment of potential to support bat roosts. The detailed results and photographs are shown in Appendix 1 and locations of buildings in Figure 1. Buildings on South View (buildings 1-8) The buildings along South View comprise the golf driving range (building 1) and a series of private residential terraced houses, detached cottages and an unoccupied bungalow (building 2). Apart from the golf driving range, all of these buildings have potential to support bats due to the presence of external features such as gaps under roof and ridge tiles, lead flashing around chimneys and gaps under weatherboarding or soffits under eaves. Some of the residential buildings have lofts which have not been converted, of these, only two residents agreed to internal inspection and no evidence of bats was found in these lofts. Buildings on orth View (buildings 9-16) orth View comprises residential buildings including The Bungalow (building 9) and Karthia (building 10) that are owned by ike Design and a series of private residential terraced houses and detached cottages. All of these buildings have potential to support bats due to the presence of the external features and lofts described below. The Bungalow comprises a two-storey building with brick walls with a Dutch gable and halfhipped gable ends. There are gaps present under the soffit, weatherboarding at the gable ends and missing roof tiles. The small roof space at the apex and eaves was inspected but no evidence of bats was noted. Karthia House comprises a two-storey building with brick walls and a pitched clay tile roof. There are gaps under bargeboard at the gable ends, under hanging tiles on dormer windows and within ivy on the southern gable end. The small loft space was inspected but no evidence of bats was noted. The remaining buildings along orth View are privately owned, they are noted as having potential to support bats due to the presence of external features such as gaps under weatherboarding, under lead flashing around porch entrances, under roof tiles and in brickwork. Some of the residential buildings have lofts which have not been converted, three of which were permitted for internal inspection and evidence of bats was found in all three of these lofts. Small numbers of long-eared bat Plecotus sp. droppings were noted in the lofts of o.2, o.3 and o. 7 orth View. The evidence in o.2 and o. 3 were largely old droppings whereas the loft of o. 7 contained fresh long-eared droppings in 2 clusters under the ridge (<20 droppings). Page 5

12 Rose Farm (buildings 17-19) The remaining derelict buildings of Rose Farm include an open corrugated metal barn, milking barn and derelict shed. These buildings are considered unlikely to support bat roosts due to their unsuitable fabric such as the corrugated metal roofs and walls or their derelict nature resulting in a lack of roof structure. Buildings on Moor Lane (buildings 20-22) The buildings along Moor Lane comprise Amen Corner Cottage and the structures associated with Amen Corner Pet Shop including a barn and stables and a series of timber shiplap sheds. The two-storey brick cottage is considered to provide potential to support bat roosts due to the presence of gaps under clay tiles and missing slate tiles allowing possible access into the loft. In addition, gaps were noted under lifted lead flashing around the chimney top and base and under rotting bargeboards. o internal access to the cottage was possible. The remaining structures, the barn, stables and sheds were assessed as unlikely to support bat roosts due to their recent construction and unsuitable fabric such as the corrugated metal roofs and walls or timber shiplap. Buildings on London Road (buildings 23-29) The buildings along London Road include Lynfield House and associated buildings owned by ike Design, Coppid Hill Guest House, and the private residences of Lyndhurst House and orberry House. Lynfield House comprises an unoccupied single storey house with brick walls and hipped clay tile roof. Potential bat roost access points were noted including broken hanging tiles, missing roof tiles and gaps under lead flashing around chimneys. The loft was inspected and no evidence of bats was noted. The garage at Lynfield House comprises a single storey, concrete block structure with a hipped clay tile roof. Potential for roosting was noted within gaps in the brickwork, gap under a ridge tile and under dense ivy cover. o evidence of bats was noted. The two timber outbuildings at Lynfield house are considered unlikely to support bat roosts due to a lack of suitable features. Coppid Hill Guest House comprises a two-storey building with brick walls and a hipped clay tile roof with part roofing felt. This building was not fully accessed for the external inspection but appears to have a large roof void and as such has potential to support bat roosts. Lyndhurst House is a two-storey house with brick walls and hipped and pitched clay tile roof. Possible gaps were noted under roof tiles, however the internal inspection of the loft found no evidence of bats. orberry House is a flat roofed bungalow with brick rendered walls. o roof void is present and external features such as soffit boxes were noted as well-sealed: as such this building is considered unlikely to support roosting bats. Buildings on Scott s Land (buildings 30-41) The buildings and structures on Scott s land comprise the farmhouse and garage (buildings 30 and 31) and a series of sheds, garages and workshops. The majority of these buildings are single storey with no roof void and comprise corrugated metal or timber shiplap walls with corrugated metal or asbestos roofing which are considered unsuitable materials to support roosting bats. The farmhouse and garage comprise brick walls with a hipped tile roof with an apparent roof void present. These two buildings were only surveyed from a distance due to access restrictions and although they are considered to be tightly constructed with limited access points for bats, missing roof tiles were noted around the chimney of the farmhouse. As such the farmhouse and garage are considered to offer potential to support bats. Page 6

13 Table 5: Summary of Building Assessment for Bat Roosts Building o. Building ame Assessment/Evidence of Bats 1 Golf Driving Range o potential 2 Disused Bungalow & garage Potential (South View) 3 Woodside Villas (South View) Potential 4 Colensa House (South View) Potential 5 Sunnyside Villas o.1 and o.2 Potential - o evidence in loft of no. 2 (South View) 6 Sunny View (South View) Potential - o evidence in loft of no. 2 7 o. 1 & 2 South View Potential 8 The Cottage (South View) Potential 9 The Bungalow Potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 10 Karthia House Potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 11 orthview House Potential 12 The Old Chapel (orth View) o Potential 13 o.2 & 3 orth View Present o.2 loft long-eared droppings scattered over new insulation under ridge mostly old with few fresh droppings (<15) o.3 loft old long-eared droppings scattered with a cluster under ridge 14 o.4 & 5 orth View Potential 15 o.6 & 7 orth View Present o. 7 loft fresh long-eared droppings in 2 clusters under ridge <20 droppings 16 o.8 & 9 orth View Potential Rose Farm: Open Barn, o Potential Milking Shed, Derelict Shed 20 Amen Corner Cottage Potential 21 Amen Corner Pet Shop Barn o potential 22 Amen Corner Pet Shop Stables o potential 23 Lynfield House Potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 24 Lynfield Garage Potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 25 Lynfield Outbuildings o potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 26 Coppid Hill Guest House Potential 27 Lyndhurst House Potential - o evidence of bats (internal) 28 orberry House o potential 29 Morrison s Yard o potential 30 Farmhouse (Scott s Land) Potential 31 Farmhouse garage (Scott s Potential Land) 32 Shed Potential (low) 33 Shed/warehouse Potential (low) 34 Shed o Potential 35 Shed old Stables o Potential 36 Barn (car garage) o Potential 37 Shed o Potential 38 Structure joining 37 to 39 o Potential 38 Shed Potential (low) 40 Garages o Potential 41 Shed Potential (low) Page 7

14 3.2.2 Bat Tree Roost Assessment Within the site boundary a large number of mature trees associated with hedgerows and field boundaries and Riggs Copse were assessed for their potential to support bat roosts. The majority of these trees comprise oak trees Quercus robur with the occasional ash tree Fraxinus excelsior. The detailed results of the assessment are presented in the table in Appendix 2 and tree locations are shown in Figure 2. Excluding Riggs Copse which will be retained as part of the proposals, a total of 24 trees were assessed as having medium to high potential to support bat roosts due to the presence of holes, splits, fissures, hollows, woodpecker holes or heavy ivy. The majority of these trees are concentrated within the hedge lines of the most western field with others scattered in hedge lines north of the Scott s land, around Rose Farm and along the site boundary north of The Bungalow and southeast of the waterworks Tree Climbing Inspections Those trees identified as medium or high potential to support bats during the bat tree roost assessment were surveyed by further detailed climbed inspections. The detailed results of the assessment are presented in the table in Appendix 3 and tree locations with their assessment are shown in Figure 2. Twenty five trees were surveyed for bat roosts using climb and inspect techniques to check for cavities and inspected using an endoscope (BCT, 2007). An additional tree (Tree 23) was surveyed to that recommended by the bat tree roost assessment as a woodpecker hole was noted that was not previously identified. However, this feature was considered too shallow to be used by roosting bats and the assessment of the tree remains as low potential. o roosts were located during the detailed climbing inspections, however it was not possible to comprehensively check a small number of features, for example, where a feature such as a high dead branch could not be safely checked. Trees containing these features have been identified in the table in Appendix 3. Ten trees were assessed as having high potential and seven trees are assessed to have medium potential to support bats, however, no trees contained evidence to suggest use by roosting bats. Six trees were downgraded (from the initial bat tree roost assessment) from medium to low potential following the detailed climbed inspection as the features identified were too shallow or superficial to support roosting bats. As such, the climbed inspection has refined the bat tree roost potential assessment to 17 trees with medium to high potential to support bat roosts Bat Activity Surveys The transects walked and areas of bat activity noted during the surveys are presented in Figure 3. The sonograms of species identified during the activity survey are shown in Appendix 4. Table 6 below presents the analysis of the Analook soundfiles recorded on each transect survey visit. The number of soundfiles recorded on each transect indicates that the level of activity was similar on each survey visit. During the surveys, bat activity was dominated by common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus bats foraging and commuting within the site. Myotis species calls were noted on two occasions and noctule yctalus noctula bat calls were recorded on one occasion. Page 8

15 Table 6: Analook soundfiles analysed by species for each survey visit Survey no. Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus species (50kHz)* Soprano pipistrelle Myotis sp. oct ule Grand Total Transect 1: 13 th May Transect 2: 16 th June Transect 3: 5 th August Grand Total % of Total 67% 14.9% 15.4% 1.1% 1.6% *i.e. those recorded calls which clearly are of the genus Pipistrellus, but which cannot be clearly assigned to one species or the other because the call frequency falls between the typical frequency of both species. Common and soprano pipistrelle activity was observed and recorded along most of the hedgerow field boundaries within the site, along the lanes including Moor Lane and South View, with occasional passes along orth View and within Riggs Copse. The Myotis species calls noted on two separate survey visits were recorded in the same location in the southern corner of the western most field of the site. The noctule calls recorded during the surveys were heard when the surveyors were walking along South View and Moor Lane, however, these were bats passing over the site rather then foraging or commuting within it. Analysis of the time at which bats were recorded and observed after dusk indicate that small numbers of soprano pipistrelle bats roost within trees in Riggs Copse and also possibly within a tree or house along South View. Evidence to support this includes: a soprano pipistrelle recorded flying south along the southern end of South View 5 minutes after dusk on the first survey visit,indicating emergence from a nearby tree or house ;and on the third visit, two soprano pipistrelle bats observed and recorded flying around a tree at dusk within Riggs Copse indicating the bats had recently emerged from a tree. 4 Discussion 4.1 Constraints on Study Information Desk Study There were no constraints to the desk study Building Assessment Every effort was made to gain access to the properties in order to undertake surveys. However, as some of the properties are in private ownership access was denied and it was not possible to fully externally or internally inspect all buildings. As such an assessment of the presence or likely absence of bats within these particular properties was not completed. However, this is not considered to be a significant constraint as the survey still provides a robust assessment of potential for bats to be present based on the building structure and features and is further strengthened by the results of the dusk activity surveys. Page 9

16 4.1.3 Bat Tree Roost Assessment The survey was undertaken at a suitable time of year to assess bat roost potential when trees are not fully in leaf thus not obscuring potential roosting features. As such there were no significant constraints in relation to this survey Tree Climbing Inspections It was not possible to comprehensively check a small number of potential roosting features, for example, where a feature such as a high dead branch could not be safely accessed. However, this is not considered to be a significant constraint as the number of features which could not be checked were few and an assessment of potential was still possible Bat Activity Surveys There were no significant constraints to the activity surveys which were undertaken at a suitable time of year and during suitable weather conditions to observe and record bat activity. 4.2 Assessment During the surveys a minimum of 5 species of bats were found to be using the site including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Myotis species, noctule and long-eared species. These are broadly similar to those species found in the wider area during the desk study which included pipistrelle species, brown long eared Plecotus auritus and Myotis species Bat Roosts in Buildings The site comprises a number of existing and unoccupied residential buildings, modern and derelict farm buildings and a series of workshops and garages on Scott s land. Apart from the farmhouse and adjacent garage, the buildings and structures on Scott s land are assessed as having negligible potential to support bat roosts due to the structural nature of the buildings being unsuitable for bats (corrugated metal or timber shiplap walls with cement asbestos or metal sheeting roofs) and with limited potential roosting features. Inspection of the remaining buildings on site revealed long-eared bat roosts within three lofts of residential houses on orth View. Based on the evidence found during the survey, it is considered that these comprise summer roosts for a small number of bats and it is considered possible that bats may be moving between these different roost sites due to the old and recent droppings present and the connectivity between roof spaces of the semi-detached properties. There are 4 further residential buildings on orth View where access to the lost was not possible and that are similar in structure to those where the long-eared roosts were found. As such, it cannot be ruled out that long-eared bat roosts may also be present in these buildings. The brown long eared bat Plecotus auritus is the most commonly encountered of the long eared species. It is a UK BAP priority species and also protected under Section 41 of the atural Environment and Rural Communities Act (ERC) 2006 as a species of principal importance for biodiversity in England. However, its status in the UK is common and recent population trends show that the species is increasing slightly (BCT, 2010). o other evidence of bats was noted during the building surveys. However, it is considered that the residential buildings on South View, Karthia, The Bungalow, Amen Corner Cottage and the farmhouse on Scott s land support external features which could provide roosting opportunities for small summer roosts of crevice dwelling species such as pipistrelle bats. Although no bats were seen to emerge from buildings during the activity survey and no behaviour indicative of roosting sites such as swarming was noted, pipistrelle bat activity was noted in the vicinity of all these buildings indicating that there is potential for these roosting opportunities to be used. Page 10

17 4.2.2 Bat Roosts in Trees Seventeen mature oak and ash trees were assessed as having medium to high potential to support bat roosts due to the presence of holes, splits, fissures, hollows, woodpecker holes or heavy ivy. However, as no evidence of bats was found during the detailed tree surveys, it is considered unlikely that these trees support breeding roosts. However, they are considered to be potential roosting sites for single individuals or small numbers of common or soprano pipistrelle bats. Although the trees within Riggs Copse were not subject to further detailed survey, as the woodland will be retained under the proposals, the copse as a whole is considered to have high potential to support roosting bats. In addition, the activity survey identified soprano pipistrelle bats flying around a tree at dusk within Riggs Copse indicating the bats had recently emerged from a tree. Furthermore, a soprano pipistrelle was observed flying along South View shortly after dusk indicating it emerged from a nearby tree or house along South View Bat Activity Four species of bat were recorded and observed on site during the survey. Bat activity was dominated by common pipistrelle bats and to a lesser extent soprano pipistrelle bats with occasional Myotis species and noctule. The common and soprano pipistrelles are two of the most widespread species within the country including Berkshire (Richardson, 2000). In addition, the latest ational Bat Monitoring Programme (BMP) results from show that common pipistrelle bats have shown a significant increase in populations throughout the UK (BCT, 2010) which has resulted in their removal from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan list of priority species. The soprano pipistrelle bat is a UK BAP priority species and protected under section 41 ERC as a species of principal importance. However the latest BMP results show that field survey counts have been increasing since 2003 and that the population is now above the 1999 baseline (BCT, 2010). The survey indicates that the dominant habitat features used by bats within the site for foraging and commuting include woodland, hedgerows along field boundaries and the tree-lined lanes of South View and Moor Lane. For common and soprano pipistrelle bats, foraging and commuting activity was focused within Riggs Copse, along the dark lanes of South View and Moor Lane, and along a number of hedgerows in the western part of the site and along the woodland plantation belt bordering the ski slope along the northern boundary of the site. The Myotis species calls were associated the hedgerows and trees in the southern corner of the western most field of the site and the noctule calls are not considered to be associated with the site but with bats passing over the site Assessment Conclusion The presence of three, small long-eared bat roosts within buildings along orth View and the probable presence of small pipistrelle bat roosts within a tree in Riggs Copse and within a tree or building along South View is an expected finding given the context of the site and the nature of the available roosting opportunities. Similarly the species assemblage and levels of bat activity found within the site during the surveys is considered to be characteristic of the type of farmland habitats found within the site. The species found to be using the site are common and widespread and typically associated with the habitats present. Although soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat are considered to be of conservation importance due to historic declines in their populations in the UK, the population trends of both species have shown recent increases (BCT, 2010). Page 11

18 4.3 Legislation and Policy Guidance Bats All species of bat and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations Jointly these pieces of legislation make it an offence to: Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or take a bat Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to, damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time) Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection, or deliberately disturb a bat such that it is likely to significantly affect: (a) i. the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young, or ii. to hibernate or migrate; (b) the local distribution of that species. In addition, some species of UK bat are identified in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as priorities for conservation action as a result of declining populations. They are also identified as species of principal importance and consequently protected through Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. A bat roost is any structure a bat uses for breeding, hibernation, resting, shelter or protection. It is important to note that since bats tend to re-use the same roost sites, legal opinion is that a bat roost is protected whether or not the bats are present at the time. Although the law provides strict protection to bats, it also allows this protection to be set aside (derogation) under Part 5 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 through the issuing of licences. These licences in England are currently determined by atural England (E) for development works. Where a lawful operation is required to be carried out which is likely to result in one of the above offences, a licence may be obtained from E to allow the operation to proceed. However, in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, a licence can only be issued where the following requirements are satisfied: The proposal is necessary to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment ; There is no satisfactory alternative ; The proposals will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and ature Conservation (PPS9) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) sets out the Government s policies on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. The broad aim of the PPS9 is to ensure that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and provide enhancements where possible. PPS9 provides that habitats and species identified as being of principal importance for the purpose of conserving English biodiversity should be protected from the adverse effects of development through the planning system. Therefore habitat and species that are not necessarily protected by legislation are still a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Page 12

19 Following the publication of the new list of UK priority habitats and species in 2007, a list of those considered to be of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England was published in May This list known as either the Section 41 (S41) or England Biodiversity List replaces that previously published under section 74 Countryside and Rights of Way Act The S41 list includes 56 habitats and 941 species considered to be of principal importance in England. The purpose of the S41 list is to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under the atural Environment and Rural Communities (ERC) Act 2006 to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions. Bat species listed on S41 and of relevance to the site include soprano pipistrelle, noctule and brown long-eared bat. Although Berkshire does not currently have Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) species targets, noctule is included as a priority LBAP species within the Bracknell Forest Biodiversity Action Plan. 4.4 Potential Impacts Disturbance, Killing and Injury There is potential for bats, including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and long-eared species, to be disturbed as a result of the proposed scheme during the construction phase as these species are confirmed or considered likely to be roosting within buildings or trees within the site. The increased noise and human presence associated with construction activity and the changes in the site layout and local environment may result in disturbance to these species. Furthermore, the demolition of buildings or removal of trees identified as potential or confirmed roost sites has the potential to cause killing and injury to those species listed above. Significant disturbance and killing and injury to bats are all offences under the WCA 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (see Section 4.3.1) Roost Loss The current surveys have identified small summer roosts of long-eared bat species and probable small summer roosts of pipistrelle species. These species remain a priority for conservation in the UK, remaining UK BAP priority species and appearing on the Section 41 list despite evidence that their populations appear to be recovering in the UK (BCT, 2010). Without mitigation measures in place the demolition of buildings or removal of trees identified as potential or confirmed roost sites may significantly affect the local population status of common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and long-eared species. Furthermore, the proposed scheme will result in the alteration of the local environment as a result of severance of linear features used by bats for navigation and this has the potential to isolate roosts from foraging habitat Habitat Loss and Fragmentation The loss or severance of linear features such as hedgerows as well as increased lighting as a result of the development close to hedgerows and woodland edges, are likely to have the greatest impact on bats by creating a barrier to foraging and commuting between roosts and foraging areas. Without effective mitigation there can reasonably be expected to be an impact on the use of the site by common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Myotis species and long-eared bat species 5 Recommendations 5.1 Further Survey It is not considered that further surveys are needed to inform the assessment made in this report or to support the planning application. Page 13

20 However, for licensing purposes (see Section 4.3.1), those buildings that were not fully accessed will require surveying to assess whether bats are present and in order to determine whether a licence from atural England is required should the buildings require demolition under the proposals. In addition, it is recommended that those buildings identified as offering potential for roosting and those with associated bat activity are inspected by a licensed bat worker prior to demolition to ensure no bats are present. These buildings will be made unsuitable for bats prior to demolition by removing any potential roosting features such as soffits, lead flashing and ridge tiles by hand and/or demolished by soft demolition techniques. These works should be supervised by a licensed batworker and if bats, or evidence of bats, are found during these works, a European Protected Species licence is likely to be required before the works can continue. Should any trees identified as high or medium potential be felled or the hedgerows they are associated with severed, it is recommended that further precautionary checks are undertaken. This could be either through a further climbing inspection immediately prior to felling or alternatively a dawn survey within the active period for bats (April-October), again immediately prior to felling. 5.2 Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement Measures Avoidance of Disturbance, Killing and Injury As described in Section 5.1 above, in order to avoid disturbance, killing and injury to bats, those buildings and trees where bat roosts have been confirmed and which require removal under the proposals will require a European Protected Species licence to be obtained from atural England to allow the works to proceed lawfully (see section ). It is recommended that those buildings which have been identified as offering potential to support bats are inspected by a licensed bat worker prior to demolition to ensure bats are absent, following which they can be removed by soft demolition techniques. Similarly, trees identified as high or medium potential will be surveyed prior to felling to ensure bats are absent. If no evidence of bats is observed, the trees can be removed using soft-felling techniques under the instruction of a licensed bat worker, if necessary, and in accordance with best practice outlined in the Advice ote Trees and Bats from the Arboricultural Association (Cowan, 2003) Habitat and Roost Creation It is recommended that areas of woodland, in particular Riggs Copse, hedgerows and trees are retained within scheme design where possible with adjacent habitat buffers to allow bats to continue to use these corridors for commuting and foraging between roosts and foraging areas. In order to strengthen existing habitat corridors for bats, it is recommended that a native woodland and scrub buffer is created around Riggs Copse which will be retained as part of the proposals with linking native woodland strips along the railway line allowing bats to commute to wider foraging habitat. These woodland strips should connect to other hedgerows and green spaces created as part of the development to provide a continuous network of commuting routes and foraging areas and to avoid severance and isolation of bat populations. These recommendations are in-line with Policy AC4 (Green Infrastructure and Landscape Character) and AC6 (Biodiversity) of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Amen Corner. Policy AC4 states that a network of existing and new green corridors will be provided throughout the site linking new areas of open space and Riggs Copse to wider green areas beyond the site. These will function as biodiversity corridors as well as providing access and visual screening. Emphasis is placed on creating a new green corridor alongside the railway to the south of the site which will connect Riggs Copse to the wider network. Page 14

21 Furthermore, Policy AC6 states that all development will conserve and enhance biodiversity which is identified as important in accordance with current legislation, planning policy, and Biodiversity Action Plans. The development will also create new habitats, including linkages between new and existing habitat within and adjoining the sites. In order to mitigate for loss of potential roost sites and to ensure bat roosting opportunities remain within the site, it is recommended that bat boxes are erected on trees within areas of open space that are linked to a network of habitat corridors and that new bat roosting features are incorporated into the fabric of new buildings to replace, on a like-for-like basis, lost potential bat-roosting resources. The European Protected Species licensing process will also ensure that mitigation for loss of any known roosts due to demolition are appropriately mitigated for. It is recommended that the lighting design along roads and other areas within the site minimises light spillage into key areas of foraging and commuting habitat including hedgerows, woodland edges and other green spaces created within the site. The design for the lighting scheme should follow good practice guidance available such as widely spaced lamp-posts along roads with controlled light pool fixings and hoods to prevent upward light spillage along with the use of low pressured sodium lamps where possible. External lighting of all buildings should also be avoided except where necessary for health and safety reasons. 6 Summary Baker Shepherd Gillespie has been commissioned to undertake a series of bat surveys at Amen Corner in order to provide baseline information on bat species using the site. The surveys included (i) an internal and external inspection of buildings; (ii) bat roost potential assessment of trees, with further detailed climbing inspections of trees with medium to high roosting potential; and (iii) bat activity surveys across the site. The surveys identified the presence of long-eared bats roosting in buildings and potential for pipistrelle species to be roosting within external features of buildings, although roosting was unconfirmed for the latter by the surveys. Seventeen trees were identified as having medium to high potential to support bat roosts, although no roosts were found during climbed assessments. However, the activity survey showed that soprano pipistrelle bats are likely to be roosting within trees in Riggs Copse and possibly within a tree along South View. The activity surveys confirmed foraging and commuting activity by common and soprano pipistrelle and Myotis species within the site with noctule bats recorded flying over the site. The roosts, species assemblage and levels of bat activity found within the site during the surveys are considered to be typical of the type of farmland habitats found within the site. This report assesses the importance of the findings and provides an assessment on the potential impacts on bats and their habitat as a result of the proposed development. Recommendations for further surveys are made in addition to mitigation measures to avoid disturbance, killing and injury of bats as well as measures to create and enhance habitat and roosting opportunities for bats. 7 References Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust (2010) The State of the UK s Bats: ational Bat Monitoring Programme Population Trends Bat Conservation Trust, London. Cowan, A. (2003) Guidance ote 1: Trees and Bats. 2 nd ed. Arboricultural Association Page 15

22 Richardson, P. (2000) Distribution Atlas of Bats in Britain and Ireland: Bat Conservation Trust, London. Page 16

23 8 Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1: Building Survey Results Building o. Building name Description Internal Survey Potential/ Evidence of Bats 1 Golf Driving Range Single storey, timber open-fronted structure with sloping corrugated metal roof Y o potential 2 Disused Bungalow & garage (South View) o external features, timber panels well-sealed, openfronted access. Floodlights at front (south side) Single storey, possibly brick walls clad with wood hanging tiles. Pitched roof with clay tiles (no loft) Potential Gaps under hanging tiles, missing roof tiles, rotten/gaps in soffits under eaves, eastern gable end. 3 Woodside Villas (South View) Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity. Pitched slate roof Gaps at gable ends, under eaves between soffit and wall. Loft present Potential 4 Colensa House (South View) Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity. Pitched roof with clay tiles and flat felt roof Potential Page 17

24 5 Sunnyside Villas o.1 and o.2 (South View) Gaps at gable ends, under eaves between soffit and wall. Loft present Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity (part repointed). Pitched slate roof Gaps under roof tiles, lead flashing around chimney, possible access under ridge tiles and under weatherboarding under eaves. Loft present to o.1 Y to o.2 Potential o evidence in loft of no. 2 6 Sunny View (South View) Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity. Pitched slate roof Gaps under roof tiles, under lead flashing around chimney, possible access under ridge tiles and under bargeboard at gable end. Loft present 7 o. 1 & 2 South View Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity and brick rendered extension. Pitched slate roof Gaps under roof & ridge tiles, under lead flashing around chimney (no.2) and bargeboard. Lofts converted 8 The Cottage (South View) Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity. Pitched slate roof and flat felt roof extension Gaps under roof tiles, bargeboard under eaves and under lead flashing around 2 chimneys at gable ends. Loft converted 9 The Bungalow Two-storey, brick walls with weatherboarding at gable ends. Dutch gable with half-hipped gable ends, skylights present. Gaps under soffit, weatherboarding at gable ends and missing roof tiles. Small roof space at apex and eaves. to o.1 Y to o.2 Y Potential o evidence in loft of no. 2 Potential Potential Potential o evidence of bats Page 18

25 10 Karthia House Two-storey, brick walls, pitched roof with clay tiles and flat felt roof extensions. Small loft space Gaps under bargeboard at gable ends, hanging tiles on dormer windows and ivy on southern gable end. Y Potential o evidence of bats 11 orthview House Two-storey, brick rendered walls. Pitched concrete corrugated tile roof. Possible gaps under soffit & weatherboarding. Roof appears intact Potential 12 The Old Chapel (orth View) Two-storey, brick walls with possible cavity. Pitched clay tile roof. Skylights present (no loft), no external features 13 o.2 & 3 orth View Two-storey, brick with possible cavity. Pitched concrete corrugated tile roof. Soffit & bargeboard present but no visible gaps. Loft present Y o Potential Present o.2 loft long-eared droppings scattered over new insulation under ridge mostly old with few Page 19

26 14 o.4 & 5 orth View Two-storey, brick with possible cavity. Pitched concrete corrugated tile roof. o visible gaps in roof, gap under bargeboard at gable end. Loft present 15 o.6 & 7 orth View Two-storey, brick with possible cavity. Pitched concrete corrugated tile roof. o visible gaps in roof, gap under lead flashing above porch. Loft present in o. 7, loft converted in o o.8 & 9 orth View Two-storey, brick with possible cavity. Pitched concrete corrugated tile roof. Gaps under roof tiles and in brickwork. Loft present 17 Rose Farm: Open Barn Single storey, concrete framed open-fronted corrugated metal barn with corrugated pitched roof. o potential features noted Y to o. 7 Y fresh droppings (<15) o.3 loft old long-eared droppings scattered with a cluster under ridge Potential Present o. 7 loft fresh long-eared droppings in 2 clusters under ridge <20 droppings Potential o Potential 18 Rose Farm: Milking Shed Single storey, brick walls with cavity, pitched corrugated sheet roof on timber frame. Derelict, roof part collapsed, gaps in roof, open doorways, broken windows Y o Potential 19 Rose Farm: Derelict Shed Concrete block walls, no roof, heavily vegetated Y o Potential Page 20

27 Open structure, only walls remaining 20 Amen Corner Cottage Two-storey, brick walls. Pitched roof with clay tiles and slate tiles on extension. Gaps under clay tiles and missing slate tiles. Gaps under lifted lead flashing around chimney top & base. Possible gaps under rotting bargeboards Potential 21 Amen Corner Pet Shop Barn Single storey timber barn with pitched corrugated sheet roof o potential features 22 Amen Corner Pet Shop Stables Recently constructed, corrugated metal walls and roof o potential features 23 Lynfield House Unoccupied single storey house, brick with rendering and possible cavity. Hipped clay tile roof. Broken hanging tiles, missing roof tiles and lead flashing around chimney on E and W side. Loft present. Y Y Y o potential o potential Potential o evidence of bats in loft 24 Lynfield Garage Single storey, concrete block walls with render. Hipped clay tile roof Y Potential Page 21

28 Dense ivy cover on E side, gap leading to cavity in wall on side, gap under tile near ridge on W side o evidence of bats 25 Lynfield Outbuildings Single storey, timber framed with weatherboarding and pitched corrugated sheeting roof Some gaps in timber panels Y o potential o evidence of bats 26 Coppid Hill Guest House Two-storey, brick walls with hipped clay tile roof, part roof felt ot fully accessed for external inspection Potential 27 Lyndhurst House Two-storey, brick walls with hipped and pitched clay tile roof. Possible gaps under roof tiles, not fully accessed for external inspection. Loft present. 28 orberry House Bungalow, brick rendered walls and flat felt roof. Soffit box well sealed, potential access under roofing felt, no loft Y Potential o evidence of bats within loft. o potential Page 22

29 29 Morrison s Yard Single storey shed with concrete block walls, metal frame and pitched corrugated metal sheet roof Open-fronted, no potential features noted 30 Farmhouse (Scott s Land) Two-storey, brick walls, hipped roof with clay tiles. House surveyed from a distance. Roof tiles are tight as are soffit boxes. Gaps under missing tiles around chimney. Loft present 31 Farmhouse garage (Scott s Land) Single storey, brick walls, hipped roof with clay tiles. Corrugated metal extension with low pitch corrugated metal sheet roof. Possible loft space, no visible gaps but surveyed from a distance. Loft present. Extension open-fronted, no potential features noted 32 Shed Single storey, brick base with timber weatherboarding. Pitched roof with corrugated asbestos sheeting and clay ridge tiles with adjacent sloped corrugated metal roof Possible gaps under clay ridge tiles and bargeboard at gable end 33 Shed/warehouse Single storey, brick base with timber weatherboarding. Pitched roof with corrugated asbestos sheeting Rotten soffits with possible gaps 34 Shed Single storey, brick walls. Low pitched roof with corrugated asbestos sheeting Partial loft but skylights present. o potential features 35 Shed old Stables Single storey, brick walls. Pitched roof with corrugated asbestos sheeting & sloping roof extension o potential features noted 36 Barn (car garage) Single storey, concrete block base corrugated asbestos walls and a curved/domed corrugated asbestos roof & sloped roof extension o potential features some weatherboarding but o potential Potential Potential Potential (low) Potential (low) o Potential o Potential o Potential Page 23

30 flush against concrete wall. 37 Shed Single-storey, concrete block base and timber weatherboarding. Low pitch corrugated asbestos roof o potential features. Weatherboarding present on gable end but flush no gap. 38 Structure joining 37 to 39 Single-storey, concrete block walls and sloped corrugated sheet roof o potential features noted 38 Shed Single-storey, concrete and brick walls with weatherboarding. Low pitch corrugated roof Few gaps under weatherboarding 40 Garages Single-storey, metal framed and corrugated metal walls and sloping roof o potential features noted 41 Shed Single-storey, timber framed with weatherboarding. Pitched corrugated metal roof Few gaps under weatherboarding o Potential o Potential Potential (low) o Potential Potential (low) Page 24

31 8.2 Appendix 2: Bat Tree Roost Assessment Results Tree no. Species Roosting features T1 Oak Light ivy, fallen limb split from (2413) trunk and small split limb T2 (2481) T3 (2442) T4 (1324) Oak Dense ivy, minor fissures dead limbs Facing Height above direction ground otes-age/form/setting Potential E & SE 2.5m Within hedge of golf driving range along South Low View near residential houses & S 5m On hedge junction Within hedge of golf driving range along South View Oak Split limb (small gap), no ivy E 5m Within hedge along South View Low Ash Woodpecker hole and small rot hole where branch has snapped off E 6m To north of The Bungalow surrounded by trees i.e. sheltered from lights of ski slope to north Low High T5 Oak Downward developing hole and 2 snapped off branch ends SE 4m In an open wooded situation i.e. sheltered from lights of ski slope to north Medium T6 Oak One downward developing hole and snapped off branch end T7 Oak One downward developing hole and snapped off branch end. o T8 (1627) Oak ivy +5 woodpecker holes & numerous fissures in dead limbs & upward facing split in limb E 6m In an open wooded situation i.e. sheltered from Medium lights of ski slope to north 5m Edge of tree belt at hotel entrance Low W & S ear Rose Farm barn on edge of open woodland area High T9 (1168) Oak Dead tree with split branch ends, rot holes & light ivy All Within hedgerow near buildings of Rose Farm Medium T10 (1071) Oak Dead limbs, downward developing fissures & upward developing splits E & S Within hedgerow on field boundary High T11 (2587) Oak? Dead tree with very dense ivy covering All Within hedgerow on the footpath at the end of Moor Lane Medium T12 (2582) Oak Snapped ends of branches, 2 x rot holes possibly upward developing, peeling bark and downward developing fissure on branch end All Within hedgerow on the field edge/footpath at the end of Moor Lane High Page 25

32 T13 (1021) T14 (1023) Oak Small upward developing split, deadwood, snapped off branch ends & upward facing splits Oak Several snapped ends off branches, upfacing T15 Ash 3 woodpecker holes in one stem likely cavity. Lowest woodpecker hole with possible grease marks or water mark T16&17 2 x Oak 2 trees close together with minor splits at branch ends upward facing & dense ivy T18 Oak Large mature tree with dense ivy with several splits at branch ends mostly upfacing T19 Oak Dense ivy with several splits at branch ends T20 Oak Large mature tree with 2 large limb scars possibly leading to a cavity T21 Oak Deadwood, split branch ends, small fissures upward facing, cavity in main stem and woodpecker hole on side T22 (2544) T23 (2539) T24 (2530) Oak 4+ rot holes, mostly upward developing and downward developing cavity and split in 2 limbs Oak Peeling bark (up-facing) minor fissures and possibly superficial rot hole, no ivy Oak 5+ woodpecker holes in one stem, minor fissures in dead stem & large cavity 2m high facing north & split branch ends All In hedgeline on edge of open wooded situation Medium Mainly W In hedgeline on edge of open wooded situation Medium 3-5m Multi-stemmed tree in middle of field (defunct hedge?) S 3-4M Within hedgerow on field edge/residential garden hedge S Within hedgerow on field edge/residential garden hedge S Within hedgerow on field edge/residential garden hedge High S Within SI field near a hedgerow Medium All Within SI field north of T20 High & W Within hedgerow on field boundary High S & E Within hedgerow on field boundary Low Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary Low Low Low High Page 26

33 T25 Oak Split branch ends (up-facing), peeling bark and small rot hole T26 Oak Split branch ends, small rot hole where branch has come off & woodpecker hole with possible staining/water E & W Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary E & W Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary Medium High T27 Oak Split branch ends E & W Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary T28 Oak Minor fissures S Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary T29 Oak Mature tree - no obvious features, to support bats Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary T30 Oak Split branch ends & rot hole W & Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary T31 (2064) Oak Bark peeling from branch, 2 x upward facing splits & up-facing rot hole & large fissure W,, S Within hedgeline adjacent to semi-mature oak plantation near A329 T32 (2088) Oak 2 x rot hole & peeling bark & S 3-6m In sheltered position adjacent to hedge and birch trees T33 Oak Several split branch ends, peeling All Within hedgeline west of Morrision's land near bark & rot hole under split branch A329 T34 (1063) Oak Split branch ends, small rot hole where branch has come off & fissure on W side W Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary Medium Low one Medium High Medium Medium Medium T35 (1050) Oak Peeling bark off dead stem, fissure in dead branch (down-facing) Within hedgerow with mature trees on field boundary Medium T36 Oak? Limb split revealing fissure upfacing Row of 6 mature trees in private garden, no access possible one tree (T36) viewed from a distance T37-T49 are situated within Riggs Copse. The majority of the trees within Riggs Copse are fairly even-aged and pole-like with limited roosting opportunities; however there are a number of mature oaks with peeling bark, split limbs, rot holes and dense ivy. The copse has a fairly open structure with a good range of ground flora and damp areas and ditches. The copse is connected to the wider landscape by hedges, tree belts and the railway line. Several trees have been assessed individually below, however the copse as a whole is considered to have high potential to support roosting bats. Low Page 27

34 T37 Oak Peeling bark, several split limbs (up-facing). Fungus growing in crown, signs of rot T38 Oak? Dense ivy cover, stem not visible, small limbs S Within Riggs Copse Low All Within Riggs Copse Medium T39 (1210) Oak Small dead limbs & 1 x rot hole in limb up-facing E 7m Within Riggs Copse Medium T40 Oak Dense ivy cover, snapped off branch ends, peeling bark T41 Oak Several snapped branch ends revealing splits (up-facing) & peeling bark T42 Oak 2x snapped branch ends revealing fissure possibly upward developing & peeling bark All Within Riggs Copse Medium All Within Riggs Copse Medium S Within Riggs Copse Medium T43 Oak Top of tree snapped creating splits at end (up-facing), fissure and peeling bark T44 Willow Extensive cavity & woodpecker holes (checked for droppings none found) T45 2 x Oak Lots of deadwood, peeling bark & split branch ends Within Riggs Copse Medium S Leaning tree within Riggs Copse Low SE Western end of Riggs Copse near railway & Scotts land T46 Oak Split branch ends (up-facing) E Within Riggs Copse Low Medium T47 (2309) Oak Dense ivy cover, small branches with deadwood All Along railway line within Riggs Copse Medium T48 (2321) Oak Rot hole where branch split off main stem Along railway line within Riggs Copse Medium T49 (2337) Oak? Dead tree with dense ivy cover, main stem not visible All Along railway line within Riggs Copse Medium Page 28

35 8.3 Appendix 3: Tree Climbing Inspection Results Tree no. Species Survey date Potential Results of aerial inspection T4 Ash 03/08/10 High Large woodpecker hole (c.40cm deep). est in base of this hole; staining on entrance but could be from bird use, diameter of entrance hole is 10cm. The other rot hole is too shallow for bats to use. o evidence of bat use was found. T5 Oak 03/08/10 Medium Hole on west side of trunk is blind and shallow. There is a cavity on the underside of a west facing limb. This goes in for c.40cm. Although it has potential to support roosting bats it is cobwebby. o evidence of bat use was found. T6 Oak 03/08/10? An oak tree found at location but no obvious roosting features located needs confirmation. T8 (1627) Oak 03/08/10 High umerous woodpecker holes and splits. The lowest 3 woodpecker holes c.10-15cm deep but horizontal only they do not lead into cavities, are not particularly sheltered and therefore have limited potential to support bats. The 4 th hole up is deeper, but cobwebby, and has potential to support bats. o evidence was located. There are two limbs where longitudinal scars are present and cavities are present where bark is growing back over exposed wood. These cavities have roosting potential but no evidence of bat roosts was located. The other obvious splits in dead limbs are shallow, rapidly narrowing and quite exposed and have limited potential to support roosting bats. T9 (1168) Oak 03/08/10 Medium Rot hole is shallow. o evidence of bat use. o other obvious features identified; the tree was only climbed to the approximately 4m on a large limb. Given that it is dead, access higher in the tree was not assessed to be safe. o obvious features were located higher in the tree. T10 (1071) Oak 03/08/10 High There is a gap between bark and rotting wood on the south side of the tree at 4m. This presents a sheltered roosting opportunity but is only large enough to support one or two bats. There are a few shallow cavities further up the tree in dead wood between 4 to 8m above ground level. Several of these have potential to support bats. The position in a hedgerow may increase suitability. o evidence of use by bats was located within the tree. T11 (2587) Oak? 03/08/10 Medium This tree is dead and covered in very dense ivy growth. It was not assessed as safe to climb. The dense ivy presents a further significant survey constraint. An emergence or dawn survey would be more effective. T12 (2582) Oak 19/08/10 Low (previously A small but shallow rot hole at the end of broken dead limb this is too shallow to be used by High) bats. Some dead bark on the same limb. Rot hole at 6m on south side but this is exposed and does not contain any evidence of bats. There is also a split branch above the track on the south side of the tree this is too shallow to be used by bats. T13 (1021) Oak 19/08/10 Medium Woodpecker holes are present in a dead branch. They are upward facing and exposed. This Page 29

36 T14 (1023) Oak 19/08/10 Low (previously Medium) reduces their potential to support bats. There is also loss bark on the trunk but this is well detached from the tree and probably too exposed to be used by bats. There is a split in the dead limb at 6m but this could not be safely inspected due to a lack of secure anchor points. Some split ends/flaking bark on its west facing limb where branches are missing. These are mainly superficial although one deeper cavity is present. This is however quite exposed. The rot hole is superficial. The dead ivy is superficial the stems being insufficiently large to provide any sheltered cavities. T15 Ash 03/08/10 High Three woodpecker holes are present. The top hole is too shallow to be used by roosting bats. The lower hole is also shallow and very cobwebby. T20 (4482) Oak 04/08/10 High (previously Medium) The middle hole is deep and leads into cavity and has high potential to support bats. A blue tit feather is present in entrance. A few cobwebs are also present suggesting that is has not been used by birds or anything else for a short period. o evidence of bats was located in association with this hole. This tree supports a deep cavity where a branch has snapped off at 6m on the east side. The cavity is deep and contains an old bird nest. This feature has high potential to support roosting bats. o evidence of roosting bats was present. There are other branch scars higher in tree but these are superficial and of insufficient depth to support roosting bats. T21 (4471) Oak 04/08/10 High This tree contains deadwood with splits. The majority of these are shallow and exposed although some of the deeper cavities have more potential to support roosting bats. The cavity in the trunk at approximately 6m is shallow and cobwebby and has low potential to support roosting bats. The woodpecker hole on the north side is too shallow to support roosting bats. o evidence of roosting bats was present. T22 (2544) Oak 04/08/10 High This tree contains numerous cavities and splits. The large, obvious cavity on the north side is rather exposed and contains a bird nest. This feature has low potential to support roosting bats. The splits and cavities in the higher limbs provide sheltered roosting opportunities. Other features are superficial and have low potential. o evidence of roosting bats was present. T23 (2539) Oak 04/08/10 Low Although previously surveyed as low, a woodpecker hole was noted which was inspected further. On close examination this feature is too shallow to be suitable for roosting bats. T24 (2530) Oak 04/08/10 High This tree contains 8 woodpecker holes, fissures and flaking bark. There are three holes high on the main limb. These are deep and lead into a cavity and have potential to support roosting bats. These holes were being used by a squirrel during the site visit which may reduce suitability for bats. Two of the holes lower on the tree are deep and lead into cavities and have potential to support roosting bats. The remaining holes are too shallow. Page 30

37 There a numerous splits on dead branches. Some of these are sufficiently deep to provide opportunities for roosting bats. There is some dead wood containing splits on the west side of the tree. These are exposed and upward facing reducing suitability. o evidence of bats was located anywhere on the tree. T25 Oak 04/08/10 Low (previously There are a few superficial cavities on this tree. Those that are present are too shallow to medium) provide opportunities for roosting bats. T26 Oak 18/08/10 High Cavity in branch hole at 4m this is deep, possibly used by roosting birds. o evidence of bat use was identified. The woodpecker hole is shallow. Rot hole on west side at 6m leads into a cavity within the trunk. This feature has high potential to support roosting bats but no evidence was located. T27 Oak 18/08/10 Low (previously Medium) Cavity on dead branch on west side at 4-5m. This feature is superficial. There is some loose bark but no evidence of bat use. The split branch end on the east side at 3m is cobwebby and exposed and therefore unlikely to be used by bats. T30 Oak 18/08/10 Medium Rotten branch at the top of the tree. Hollow but full of cobwebs. Small cavity beneath is cobwebby. The rot hole on the side is clean and no evidence of bats is present. T31 (2064) Oak 18/08/10 High Split on SW side is too exposed. The woodpecker hole is too shallow. A small hole in this area is full of water and therefore unsuitable. There is a hole/split on the E side which is sheltered and is a possible bird roost. On the E side there is a large split on the upper side of the horizontal limb at 7m above ground level. Part of this forms a sheltered cavity. o evidence of bat use was identified. T32 (2088) Oak 18/08/10 Low (previously Medium) Shallow cavities on the trunk are superficial too shallow for use by bats. There is some flaking bark but it is rather exposed. o evidence of bat use. T33 Oak 19/08/10 Medium Split branch ends but no cavities. Loose bark forming cavity on west facing limb at 7m above ground level. This contains feathers and therefore a probable bird roost. The remaining features are superficial. o evidence of bat use. T34 (1063) Oak 18/08/10 Low (previously Some split branch ends but cavities superficial and exposed. Other features too superficial. Medium) T35 Oak 18/08/10 Medium A hollow dead branch is present near the top of tree. This was not possible to access safely. It has potential to support bats, but the exposed position near the top of tree may reduce its suitability. Some loose bark is present around the dead ends of limbs but this is superficial and has low potential to support bats. Other features are superficial. Page 31

38 8.4 Appendix 4: Sonograms of Bat Species Recording of a Common pipistrelle Recording of a Soprano pipistrelle Page 32

39 Recording of a octule Recording of a Myotis sp. Page 33