Wales and Borders Rail Service and TRAN01 - CVL Transformation Bat Survey Report: Gelynis Farm Overbridge and Compound | A01 08/12/20

TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034

Document Control Sheet Project Name: Wales and Borders Rail Service and South Wales Metro

Project Number: TRAN01 - CVL Transformation Report Title: Bat Survey Report: Gelynis Farm Overbridge and Compound Report Number: TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 Plan of Work Stage C ELR CAM Mileage From ***M ***ch Mileage To ***M ***ch

Issue Record Issue Prepared Reviewed Approved Status/Amendment A01 Name: Kathryn Loat Name: ZCM Name: JH S3 Fit for Internal Review Signature: Signature: Signature: and Comment P02.1 Date: 08/12/20 Date: 08/12/20 Date: 08/12/20 P01 Name: KLO Name: AW Name: --- S1 Fit for co-ordination Signature: Signature: Signature: Rev1

Date: 05/11/20 Date: 05/11/20 Date: --- Name: Name: Name: ------Signature: Signature: Signature:

Date: --- Date: --- Date: ---

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 1 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Executive Summary

▪ A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the Gelynis Farm overbridge and compound sites recommended a suite of bat surveys to provide an assessment of how bats use the sites and bat roost presence or likely absence to inform detailed design of the development and the planning

Purpose application. ▪ The methods used comprised a desk study including a records centre data search (SEWBReC) and search of the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Field surveys comprised Preliminary Roost Assessment of buildings, Preliminary Ground-Level Roost Assessment of trees, activity transect surveys, static monitoring surveys and emergence / re-entry surveys;

Methods ▪ The surveys followed the best practice guidance set out in ‘Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines’ (Collins, 2016). ▪ The overbridge and compound sites are used by up to ten different bat species for foraging and commuting; ▪ The vast majority of calls recorded were from common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) with Myotis and Nyctalus species the next most frequent;

▪ The woodland strips along the eastern and western boundaries of the transect route and two hedgerows that connect at listening point eight are well-established commuting routes used mainly by common and soprano pipistrelles; ▪ They connect the site to the wider area and the which is a key foraging resource and where the highest levels of bat activity were recorded; Conclusions ▪ The Annex II species greater and lesser horseshoe were recorded using the site very occasionally with roosts known to be present to the north and north-west of the site. Call timings and the low numbers of calls recorded suggest that the linear features within the site are not important commuting routes for these species; and ▪ The more light-sensitive and low-flying Myotis species were recorded throughout the site. ▪ Clearance of scattered trees and scrub in the north-western corner of the overbridge site boundary

and either side of the railway line is to be kept to a minimum; ▪ No linear vegetation is to be severed from its connection to the River Taff; ▪ The two drainage balancing ponds are to be enhanced with bat-friendly planting including night- scented species which will attract night-flying insects; ▪ Any lighting required during construction should be kept to an absolute minimum and should be hooded and directional to avoid light spill on the surrounding woodland and the River Taff; ▪ As an enhancement, three bat boxes are to be installed within the woodland strip along the River Taff

Recommendations and two bat boxes are to be installed within the mature trees to the south of the farmhouse. These should include a range of box types with suitability for crevice and hole dwelling species, ideally a combination of Schwegler 2F, Schwegler 2F DFP and Schwegler 1FS boxes.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 2 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Contents Executive Summary...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Background ...... 5 2.1 Site Description ...... 5 2.2 Purpose of this Report ...... 5 2.3 Proposed Development ...... 5 3. Ecology and Legislation...... 6 3.1 Ecology ...... 6 3.2 Legislation...... 6 4. Methods ...... 7 4.1 Desk Study...... 7 4.2 Field Survey ...... 7 3.2.1 Preliminary Roost Assessment / Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment ...... 7 3.2.2 Activity Transect Surveys...... 8 3.2.3 Static Monitoring Surveys ...... 9 3.2.4 Emergence / Re-entry Surveys ...... 10 3.2.5 Field Survey Limitations and Assumptions ...... 11 5. Results...... 11 5.1 Desk Study...... 11 5.1.1 Statutory Designated Sites for Bats...... 11 5.1.2 Ancient Woodland Inventory ...... 12 5.1.3 Biological Records...... 12 5.2 Field Survey ...... 12 5.2.1 Preliminary Roost Assessment / Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment ...... 12 5.2.2 Activity Transect Surveys...... 14 5.2.3 Static Monitoring Surveys ...... 15 5.2.4 Emergence / Re-entry Surveys ...... 16 6. Interpretation, Conclusions and Recommendations...... 17 6.1 Interpretation ...... 17 6.1.1 Desk Study...... 17 6.1.2 Activity Transect Surveys ...... 17 6.1.3 Static Monitoring Surveys ...... 17 6.2 Conclusions ...... 19 6.3 Recommendations ...... 19 7. References...... 20

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 3 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Tables

Table 1: Route Section Details Table 2: Bat Activity Transect Survey Details Table 3: Static Monitoring Survey Details Table 4: Details of Emergence / Re-entry Surveys of Tree T3 Table 5: Statutory Sites Designated for Bats within 10km Table 6: Trees and Structures with Bat Roost Potential Table 7: Number of Bat Calls on Activity Transects Table 8: Species Recorded at each Listening Point Table 9: Number of Static Detector Bat Calls at Location One Table 10: Number of Static Detector Bat Calls at Location Two Table 11: Number of Static Detector Bat Calls at Location Three

Appendices

Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Photographs

Confidentiality of Bat Data The report contains sensitive information on the location of bat roosts and should be treated as confidential. Should this report be released into the public domain, sensitive data should be redacted.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 4 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

1. Introduction This document reports on the findings of a bat (Chiroptera sp.) survey of the proposed Gelynis Farm overbridge and Gelynis temporary construction compound, in Morganstown, , hereafter referred to as the overbridge site and compound site respectively. This development forms part of the upgrade to the Core Valley Lines (CVL) as part of the wider South Wales Metro project. The construction of the overbridge will result in the closure of the existing level crossings at Gelynis Farm and Pentyrch which is essential for public safety following the installation of electrified Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) along the railway. Bat emergence/re-entry, activity transects and static monitoring surveys were recommended following a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) (KeolisAmey, 2020) which noted habitats and features within the overbridge site and compound site that may support roosting and/or foraging and commuting bats. This report provides the results of the bat surveys and the potential impacts of the current proposals on bats are assessed; recommendations are provided where necessary. 2. Background 2.1 Site Description The proposed overbridge site and compound site are located towards the southern end of the Radyr to (RS0R2P) route section for the CVL Transformation Works and are located centrally at grid reference: ST 12965 81553 and ST 12911 81577 respectively (refer to Table 1 below). The proposed overbridge site and compound site are located on a known flood plain within rough pastoral grassland which has been used for grazing horses and periodically cut for hay. The site is bounded by ancient woodland to the south and west and the River Taff to the east. TABLE 1: SITE LOCATION DETAILS

Location ELR Route Section Grid Reference Latitude and Longitude Gelynis Overbridge CAM RS0R2P (Radyr to ST 12965 81553 51.525999, -3.2559255 Pontypridd) Gelynis Temporary CAM RS0R2P (Radyr to ST 12911 81577 51.526367, -3.2567614 Construction Compound Pontypridd)

2.2 Purpose of this Report This report aims to provide an assessment of how bats use the site and bat roost presence or likely absence. It also provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on this species group. Recommendations for mitigation, licensing and precautionary methods of working are also made where considered necessary. 2.3 Proposed Development The proposed overbridge and compound sites are located approximately 60m to the east of Ty Nant Road, 20m north of the M4 and 20m west of the River Taff and are divided into an area for the overbridge and an area for the compound required to build it. A planning application is required for the construction of the overbridge site, but the compound site will be constructed under permitted development rights. The two sites are currently vehicle accessible by a small residential access road off the B4262 which is unsuitable for HGVs. During construction the two sites will be accessed by a new temporary access road that will be constructed as part of the temporary compound proposed for Pentyrch playing fields. The access road will run from Ty-Nant Road (OS grid reference: ST 12906 81861) through the Pentyrch playing fields and adjacent grassland to a plant crossing point on the existing Public Right of Way (PRoW) (OS grid reference: ST 12938 81619). The Pentyrch temporary

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 5 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

compound will be constructed under permitted development rights and will not be included within the planning application for the overbridge site and as such will not be considered further in this report. The two sites are currently accessed on foot by an existing PRoW which links the residential access road and Pentyrch playing fields with via a level crossing over the railway and a footbridge over the River Taff. It is proposed to close and divert the existing PRoW over the new overbridge and close the level crossing. The proposed overbridge site (refer to Table 1) will provide new and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians over the railway and will cover an area of approximately 8,116m². The overbridge will run south from the existing PRoW and will then turn east and run adjacent to the woodland along the southern boundary of the overbridge site. It will then turn north adjacent to the eastern boundary of Gelynis Farm and the western boundary of the River Taff to tie in with the existing PRoW before the River Taff footbridge. The development will include a large gravel embankment along the length of the bridge either side of the railway, two storage/infiltration ponds, a drainage ditch, a culvert pipe, six filter drains and an outfall pipe flowing into the River Taff. The proposed compound site will be located in the adjacent field on the western side of the railway (refer to Table 1) and will cover an area of approximately 3,550m². It will be connected to the Pentyrch construction compound access road at a plant crossing on the existing PRoW. The proposed compound site is temporary, and the site conditions will be re-instated post-operation. This will involve removal of the gravel substrate installed as part of the compound construction and re-instatement of the original substrate which will be kept throughout the operational phase. The ground will also be ploughed in any areas that have become compacted. A construction date for the work is not yet confirmed but it is anticipated that work will begin at the beginning of 2021. 3. Ecology and Legislation 3.1 Ecology Some species of bat are only as long and wide as a human thumb and so can crawl into tiny cracks and crevices. They have a small body covered in fur which is brown or grey on their backs and usually paler beneath, with comparatively large wings that are folded against their body while roosting. Almost any suitable crevice greater than 50mm deep and 12mm wide can be used as a roost. Bat signs at roosts most commonly take the form of droppings, staining, scratching or food remains. Bats give birth between May and July, mate between August and October and hibernate between November and March. They tend to move between several roosts throughout the year to suit t he environmental conditions (such as temperature and seasonal foraging resource). As nocturnal creatures they are sensitive to noise and light. Trees such as oak, beech and ash are particularly suitable for bats, but any woodland or tree has potential for a bat roost – especially if it has hollows in the trunk or branches, woodpecker holes, loose bark, cracks, splits, thick ivy or root cavities. Many buildings, trees or other suitable built structures can be considered as having potential to support bat roosts at some time of the year.

3.2 Legislation Bats are fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is an offence to: • Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat; • Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 6 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

• Damage or destroy any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a bat (even if bats are not present in the roost); • Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a structure or place which it uses for that purpose; or • Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat. To undertake activities that would overwise be an offence under the above legislation, a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) must be applied for f rom the statutory authority; in this case Natural Resources Wales (NRW). 4. Methods 4.1 Desk Study A desk study was undertaken and reported within the PEAR (KeolisAmey, 2020). This provided a review of existing information about the habitats and protected species present within the site boundary and Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the proposed development. This included a data search request to the South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (SEWBReC) in 2019 for protected and priority species present and a review of ancient woodland presence within 2km of the site boundary. It also included an additional search for statutory sites designated specifically for bats within 10km of the site. 4.2 Field Survey 3.2.1 Preliminary Roost Assessment / Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment A Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) of structures and a Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment (PGLRA) of trees at the overbridge and compound sites (including earlier design options) and their adjacent habitats was carried out by Amey ecologists Kathryn Loat BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (NRW licence number: S087584/1) and Abigail Sanders BSc (Hons) MSc GradIEMA on 19 August 2019. An additional PGLRA of trees was carried out by Kathryn Loat on 14 April 2020 following agreement of access to land at Gelynis Farm. The surveys were carried out in accordance with best practice guidance set out in 'Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines – 3rd edition' (Collins, 2016). This survey assesses the potential of a structure or tree to support a bat roost. This involves a systematic search of a structure for potential or actual bat access points and/or any evidence of bats. Within trees, this involves an external inspection of Potential Roost Features (PRFs) and/or any evidence of bats. PRFs that may be used by bats include: • Woodpecker holes; • Rot holes; • Hazard beams; • Partially detached bark; • Knot holes arising from naturally shed branches; • Other holes or cavities, including butt-rotes; • Double leaders forming compression forks; • Gaps between overlapping steams or branches; • Cankers; and • Partially detached ivy with steam diameter in excess of 50mm. Signs of a bat roost, besides the actual presence of bats includes: • Bat droppings; • Odour;

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 7 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

• Audible squeaking at dusk or in warm weather; and • Staining. 3.2.2 Activity Transect Surveys In accordance with guidance in Collins (2016) for habitat with high suitability for bats, activity transect surveys were carried out at the overbridge and compound sites once a month in October 2019 and from April 2020 to September 2020 with an additional dawn transect undertaken in August 2020, refer to Table 2 below for individual survey details. This involved walking a pre-planned route through the site which incorporated linear features and other habitats of interest for bats (including areas affected by the earlier overbridge design options) using an EchoMeter Touch 2 Pro or Elekon Batlogger M bat detector to record any bat activity along the route (refer to Appendix A Figure TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-YPA-Y-EN-000574. Surveyors also recorded any bats seen and information about their behaviour and direction of flight. At eight pre-planned ‘listening point’ locations along the route surveyors paused for five minutes to record bat activity in those areas. The locations of the listening points were selected based on the presence of high-quality habitat for bat foraging and/or the convergence of linear features that may support commuting bats. Each activity transect was carried out in accordance with the best practice guidance set out in 'Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines – 3rd edition' (Collins, 2016) by two surveyors including at least one ecologist with experience of undertaking bat activity transect surveys. TABLE 2: BAT ACTIVITY TRANSECT SURVEY DETAILS

Survey Survey Start Finish Sunset Weather Conditions Surveyors Date Type Time Time /Sunrise Time Tem Rain Cloud Win p (Oktas d (°C) ) (BF) 22 October Dusk 18:06 20:06 18:06 13°C Dry 0/8 0/12 Kathryn Loat - 2019 BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (licensed bat worker) Abigail Sanders - BSc MSc GradIEMA 28 April Dusk 20:32 22:32 20:32 14°C Dry 8/8 0/12 Kathryn Loat - 2020 BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (licensed bat worker) Daniella Ord- Hume – BSc (Hons) 28 May Dusk 21:16 23:16 21:16 25°C Dry 0/8 2/12 Abigail Sanders 2020 - BSc MSc GradIEMA Lea Arrowsmith – BSc (Hons) 25 June Dusk 21:34 23:34 21:34 27°C Dry 0/8 0/12 Kathryn Loat - 2020 BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (licensed bat worker)

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 8 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Stephanie Cox – BSc (Hons) ACIEEM 15 July Dusk 21:23 23:23 21:23 16°C Dry 8/8 1/12 Stephanie Cox – 2020 (walked BSc (Hons) in ACIEEM reverse) Daniella Ord- Hume – BSc (Hons) 13 August Dusk 20:38 22:38 20:38 21°C Dry 6/8 0/12 Joseph Allsopp 2020 – BSc (Hons) ACIEEM Natalie Christie – BSc (Hons) 28 August Dawn 04:20 06:20 06:20 13°C Dry 8/8 2/12 Kathryn Loat - 2020 BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (licensed bat worker) Stephanie Cox – BSc (Hons) ACIEEM 10 Dusk 19:38 21:38 19:38 14°C Dry 3/8 2/12 Kathryn Loat - September (walked BSc (Hons) MSc 2020 in MCIEEM reverse) (licensed bat worker) Natalie Christie – BSc (Hons)

3.2.3 Static Monitoring Surveys Static monitoring of the overbridge and compound sites (including areas affected by the earlier overbridge design options) was carried out alongside the activity transects in October 2019 and from April 2020 to September 2020, refer to Table 3 below for individual static survey details. In accordance with guidance in Collins (2016) for habitat with high suitability for bats this involved the deployment of three Anabat Express bat detectors at separate pre-planned locations (Location one, two and three) for five consecutive nights. The locations of the Anabats were selected based on the presence of high-quality habitat for bat foraging and/or the convergence of linear features that may support commuting bats (refer to Appendix A Figure TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-YPA-Y-EN-000574. The locations were also dictated by the design (including previous design options that incorporated location three) and by the land access that was available at the time. The land at Gelynis farm was not accessible in 2019 so Anabat location two was placed in the nearest suitable position along the same linear treeline running along the eastern boundary of Gelynis farm. Once access to this area had been agreed in April 2020 it was decided that the static detectors should remain in their original positions for data consistency. In accordance with Collins (2016) where possible, the Anabats were deployed at the same time as the corresponding activity transect survey and in periods of favourable weather conditions. Bat calls recorded during the static monitoring surveys were analysed using AnalookW software with reference to Russ (2012) and Middleton et al. (2014) to aid in identification. Bat calls were identified to species level where possible.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 9 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

TABLE 3: STATIC MONITORING SURVEY DETAILS

Survey Month Static Monitoring Weather Conditions Period October 2019 22 - 27 October. 8°C -16°C, mainly dry and clear with rain on night of 25th. April 2020 14 - 18 April. 2°C – 17.5°C, mainly dry with rain on night of 16th. May 2020 28 May – 1 June. 11°C - 23°C, dry throughout monitoring period. June 2020 16 – 20 June. 12.5°C - 18°C, mainly dry with rain on night of 18th. July 2020 20 – 24 July. 10.5°C - 18°C, dry throughout monitoring period. August 2020 13 – 17 August. 15.5°C - 23°C, mainly dry with rain on night of 15th. September 2020 9 – 13 September. 9.5°C – 16.5°C, dry throughout monitoring period.

3.2.4 Emergence / Re-entry Surveys Following the PGLRA of trees, the Root Protection Area (RPA) of one tree with high bat roost potential (T3) was identified to be within the overbridge site boundary (refer to Appendix A Figure TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-YPA-Y-EN-000573). Subsequently this tree was subject to three emergence / re-entry surveys to determine the presence / likely absence of roosting bats within the tree . In accordance with Collins (2016), the three surveys were undertaken in suitable conditions including two surveys between May and August with a minimum of two weeks spacing between surveys, refer to Table 4 below for individual survey details. Each survey was carried out by two surveyors with experience of undertaking bat emergence/re-entry surveys. TABLE 4: DETAILS OF EMERGENCE/RE-ENTRY SURVEYS OF TREE T3

Survey Survey Start Finish Sunset Weather Conditions Surveyors Date Type Time Time /Sunrise Time Temp Rain Cloud Wind (°C) (Oktas) (BF) 6 August Dusk 20:37 22:37 20:52 19°C Dry 7/8 0/12 Stephanie 2020 emergence Cox – BSc (Hons) ACIEEM Daniella Ord- Hume Daniella Ord- Hume – BSc (Hons) 26 August Dawn re- 04:31 06:31 06:16 14°C Dry 4/8 5/12 Kathryn Loat - 2020 entry BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM (licensed bat worker) Stephanie Cox – BSc (Hons) ACIEEM 10 Dusk 19:22 21:22 19:37 12°C Dry 1/8 3/12 Stephanie September emergence Cox – BSc 2020 (Hons) ACIEEM Daniella Ord- Hume Daniella Ord-

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 10 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Hume – BSc (Hons)

3.2.5 Field Survey Limitations and Assumptions Prior to April 2020 it was not possible to access the land on the eastern side of the railway at Gelynis Farm. Consequently, the activity transect and static detector surveys carried out in October 2019 excluded this area and listening points four and five. All activity transect surveys from April 2020 onwards included this area and therefore, this is not considered to be a significant limitation. The 'Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines – 3rd edition' (Collins, 2016) recommend that at least one of the activity transect surveys should comprise a dusk and pre-dawn or dusk to dawn survey within one 24 hour period which in this case was scheduled to take place during August 2020. However, due to unsuitable weather conditions the dusk survey was carried out successfully, but the corresponding dawn survey was rescheduled to a later date within the same month. Whilst this is a deviation from best practice guidance it is not considered to be a significant limitation as a dawn survey was still carried out in the same month and in suitable weather conditions. Data from automated static monitoring surveys is limited due to a lack of observational context, it can confirm presence of an individual bat species at a specific location but cannot provide information about numbers of bats or their behaviour. It is also biased towards bats that use louder echolocation calls and quiet species such as brown long-eared bats may be under recorded. This has been taken into consideration in the impact assessment. There are also limitations in identifying bats using sound analysis software and identification to species level is not always possible. This is particularly true of the Myotis genus and large bat species (i.e. noctule (Nyctalus noctula), Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) and serotine (Eptesicus serotinus)). There are often overlaps in call parameters of the frequency modulated parts of these species’ calls, particularly when they are flying in a cluttered environment. Identification has been made through analysis of call parameters with reference to Russ (2012) and Middleton et al. (2014) using professional judgement and experience. Where it has not been possible to identify calls to species level with reasonable certainty the calls have been identified to genus level only. Due to construction activities adjacent to static bat detector location three it was not possible to deploy the Anabat at this location during June and July 2020. This is not considered to be a significant limitation because it was possible to deploy the detector on a separate hedgerow in proximity to the original location on both occasions. Biological records are obtained from third-parties and do not represent a full species list for the area. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) issued advice on the lifespan of ecological reports and surveys in 2019. Whilst this will vary on a case by case basis, this survey report is likely to be valid for 18 months. After this time, a professional ecologist should be consulted on the validity of this report.

5. Results 5.1 Desk Study 5.1.1 Statutory Designated Sites for Bats There is one statutory site designated specifically for bats located within 10km of the overbridge site or compound site, as described in Table 5 below. TABLE 5: STATUTORY SITES DESIGNATED FOR BATS WITHIN 10KM

Site Name Designation Reason for Designation Distance from Site (km) Ruperra Castle and SSSI The site is of special interest as the 10km north-east at Woodlands only known nursery roost for the nearest point. greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 11 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

ferrumequinum) in the Mid and South Glamorgan Area of Search and one of only five known nursery roosts of this species in Wales. The buildings at Ruperra Castle, situated in Lower Machen, Caerphilly, support a colony of greater horseshoe bats of national and international importance.

5.1.2 Ancient Woodland Inventory A search of the ancient woodland inventory indicates that there are 13 ancient semi-natural woodlands, nine restored ancient woodlands and one ancient woodland of unknown category within 1km of the two sites. The woodland to the west of the railway line is classified as ancient semi- natural woodland and immediately bounds the proposed overbridge site. 5.1.3 Biological Records Over 600 records of bats were returned within a 2km radius of the site. Species recorded comprise: unidentified bat species, pipistrelle species (Pipistrellus sp.), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), noctule, myotis species (Myotis sp.), Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentonii), whiskered (Myotis mystacinus), Natterer's bat (Myotis nattereri), serotine and brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus). There were also several records for the Annex II species greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) and lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros). A number of records of roosts were returned within the desk study, species comprised: unidentified bat species, pipistrelle species, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Daubenton's bat, Natterer's bat, brown long-eared and greater and lesser horseshoe. One maternity roost was returned approximately 0.1km away which was identified as a pipistrelle species.

5.2 Field Survey 5.2.1 Preliminary Roost Assessment / Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment The PRA identified two buildings with bat potential present within the survey area, these are described in Table 6 below. The PGLRA carried out in August 2019 identified one tree with high bat roost potential within the survey area and the PGLRA carried out in April 2020 identified a further eight trees with bat roost potential. Photographs are detailed in Appendix B and referenced in Table 6 below. TABLE 6: TREES AND STRUCTURES WITH BAT ROOSTING POTENTIAL WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA

Tree/ Tree Species/ Grid Potential Roost Bat Impacted Appendix Structure Structure Type Reference Features (PRF's) / Roost by B Photo Number Roost Evidence Potential Current Reference Design T1 Pedunculate oak ST 13114 Large cavity in stem High No Photo 1 (Quercus robur) 81637 with additional small cavities inside and peeling bark. Other features likely to be present in canopy. T2 Sycamore (Acer ST 13120 A tear out limb is Low No Photo 2 pseudoplatanus) 81604 present but does not appear to extend upwards. Dense ivy is present to the top of the stem which is suitable for CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 12 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

opportunistic roosting but unlikely to be concealing further PRFs due to good condition of the tree. T3 Sweet chestnut ST 13123 Ancient tree with High Yes (RPA Photo 3 (Castanea 81590 multiple dead limbs. only) sativa) Large hazard beam in broken limb facing the river. Dead limb splits and hazard beam in severed limb facing farmhouse. Many areas of peeling bark. T4 Hazel (Corylus ST 13124 Main stem appears to Low No Photo 4 avellana) 81569 be in good condition. A broken limb is present facing the river with ivy forming a feature over the heartwood. T5 Pedunculate oak ST 13129 Main stem and limbs Low No Photo 5 81550 appear to be in good condition. Dense ivy is present up the stem forms opportunistic PRF but unlikely to be concealing further PRFs due to good condition of the tree. T6 Sycamore ST 13128 Mature tree with stem Low No Photo 6 81555 that appears in good condition. Dense ivy is present up the stem forms opportunistic PRF but unlikely to be concealing further PRFs due to good condition of the tree. T7 Pedunculate oak ST 13128 Mature oak with a Moderate No Photo 7 81547 bent limb that has two frost cracks. First appears to be shallow, second appears to extend upwards into heartwood. Peeling bark is present on one limb. Knot hole also present in steam but appears to be shallow and is upwards facing. T8 Cherry species ST 13120 Mature cherry with Low No N/A (Prunus sp.) 81580 sealed tear-out present from ground but too shallow for a CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 13 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

PRF. Dense ivy up stem forms PRF but unlikely to be concealing further PRFs due to good condition of tree. Building 1 Grade II listed ST 13029 Single bat droppings Confirmed No Photo 8 (B1) barn 81665 that are assumed to roost have been deposited by brown long-eared (characteristic grain size and building is already a confirmed roost for this species) and lesser horseshoe (characteristic grain size and division into three parts) bats were found within the barn. Open doors provide access to surfaces suitable for night roosting, some crevices were also present within the internal stonework, although this had recently been re- pointed. Building 2 Grade I listed ST 13065 Gaps in roof tiles and High No Photo 9 (B2) farmhouse 81628 at gable ends, adjacent to confirmed roost.

5.2.2 Activity Transect Surveys A total of eight activity transect surveys were undertaken across the two sites between October 2019 and September 2020 (refer to Section 3.2.2). Bat activity was observed across the entirety of the transect; species recorded during the surveys comprised common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii), noctule, Nyctalus species, Myotis species, brown long- eared and lesser horseshoe. Individual numbers of species recorded during the transects are shown in Table 7 below and the species recorded at each listening point are shown in Table 8 below with activity across the transect represented on Appendix A Figure TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-YPA-Y-EN- 000575. TABLE 7: NUMBER OF BAT CALLS ON ACTIVITY TRANSECTS

22 28 April 28 May 25 June 15 July 13 28 10 October 2020 2020 2020 2020 August August September 2019 2020 2020 2020 Common 60 105 182 100 98 242 0 106 pipistrelle Soprano 45 64 148 81 88 142 37 64 pipistrelle Nathusius’ 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 pipistrelle Noctule 14 4 5 11 21 1 1 0

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 14 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Nyctalus 20 2 1 6 1 0 0 0 sp. Serotine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myotis sp. 15 16 9 24 24 28 1 42 Brown 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 long-eared Greater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 horseshoe Lesser 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 horseshoe

TABLE 8: SPECIES RECORDED AT EACH LISTENING POINT (LP)

LP 1 LP 2 LP 3 LP 4 LP 5 LP 6 LP 7 LP 8

Common         pipistrelle Soprano        pipistrelle Nathusius’  pipistrelle Noctule     Nyctalus sp. Myotis sp.      Brown long-     eared Greater horseshoe Lesser  horseshoe

5.2.3 Static Monitoring Surveys A total of seven static monitoring surveys were undertaken at locations one, two and three between October 2019 and September 2020 (refer to Section 3.2.3). Bat activity and a variety of species were recorded at each location comprising common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Nyctalus species, serotine, Myotis species, brown long-eared, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe. Individual numbers of species recorded during each month are shown in Tables 9, 10 and 11 below. TABLE 9: NUMBER OF STATIC DETECTOR BAT CALLS AT LOCATION 1

October April May 2020 June July August September 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Common 2 478 308 3 179 22 62 pipistrelle Soprano 9 119 79 4 289 32 134 pipistrelle Nathusius’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pipistrelle Noctule 0 0 1 2 48 8 0 Nyctalus sp. 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Serotine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Myotis sp. 4 30 88 9 282 30 47

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 15 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Brown long- 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 eared Greater 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 horseshoe Lesser 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 horseshoe

TABLE 10: NUMBER OF STATIC DETECTOR BAT CALLS AT LOCATION 2

October April May 2020 June July August September 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Common 90 1,776 1,460 5 1,242 965 335 pipistrelle Soprano 57 831 990 6 645 1,963 96 pipistrelle Nathusius’ 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 pipistrelle Noctule 1 7 35 0 29 43 0 Nyctalus sp. 0 0 18 0 2 11 0 Serotine 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Myotis sp. 1 13 14 0 43 60 21 Brown long- 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 eared Greater 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 horseshoe Lesser 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 horseshoe

TABLE 11: NUMBER OF STATIC DETECTOR BAT CALLS AT LOCATION 3

October April May 2020 June July August September 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Common 71 291 224 280 77 1,626 36 pipistrelle Soprano 54 152 166 106 89 2,436 88 pipistrelle Nathusius’ 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 pipistrelle Noctule 0 9 23 9 51 5 1 Nyctalus sp. 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Serotine 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Myotis sp. 1 18 9 8 13 56 8 Brown long- 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 eared Greater 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 horseshoe Lesser 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 horseshoe 5.2.4 Emergence / Re-entry Surveys Three emergence / re-entry surveys were carried out in August and September 2020 on Tree T3 comprising two dusk surveys and one dawn survey (refer to Section 3.2.4). On all three surveys bat activity was recorded throughout the survey with bats mainly foraging and commuting along the tree line adjacent to the River Taff. Species recorded during the surveys comprised common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Myotis species and brown long-eared. No emergence or re-entry to the tree was recorded on any of the surveys indicating likely absence of a bat roost, therefore, no further recommendations for the tree are given in this report.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 16 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

6. Interpretation, Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 Interpretation 6.1.1 Desk Study The desk study identified 22 ancient woodlands within 1km of the sites including 13 ancient semi- natural woodlands and nine restored ancient woodlands. One of these woodlands is Mynydd Woods which is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and is located adjacent to the western boundaries of the overbridge and compound sites. Whilst this non-statutory designated site is not designated specifically for bats it does provide ideal foraging habitat and a linear route for bats to commute to the River Taff. The number of ancient woodlands within 1km of the site boundaries also indicates that the wider area is highly suitable for bat foraging and commuting. This is also supported by records of known roosts of seven species within 2km of the sites including a maternity roost located within 0.1km. There are also several records for roosts of the Annex II species lesser horseshoe and greater horseshoe located approximately 0.5km away at the nearest point within areas of ancient woodland. A single dropping characteristic of lesser horseshoe was also found within the Grade II listed barn at Gelynis Farm located to the north of the overbridge site. The barn is not considered to be dark enough to support lesser horseshoe bats during the daytime suggesting that the barn may occasionally be used as a night roost. 6.1.2 Activity Transect Surveys Overall, a moderate level of bat activity was recorded throughout the transect route with a high level of activity recorded at listening point six. Bat activity peaked during the August dusk. A total of eight species were recorded during the surveys including the Annex II species lesser horseshoe which was recorded very briefly during the survey in September 2020 close to listening point eight. The vast majority of bats recorded were common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle with occasional Myotis species, noctule and Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Surveyors recorded commuting routes used mainly by common and soprano pipistrelle along the edges of the woodland strips on the eastern and western boundaries of the transect route with less activity observed along the woodland at the southern boundary of the route. The boundary of Mynydd Woods SINC was observed to be used mainly by common and soprano pipistrelles, but Myotis species were also sometimes recorded. The two hedgerows connecting at listening point eight were also observed to be frequently used by common and soprano pipistrelles and Myotis species as well as noctule occasionally and lesser horseshoe once in September 2020. A moderate level of foraging activity was also observed throughout the site and was by far the most prevalent at listening point six which is on the footbridge over the river Taff close to the eastern boundary of the overbridge site. The River Taff is a major bat foraging resource which surveyors noted was being used by large numbers of bats which were mainly common and soprano pipistrelles with Daubenton’s bat also heard frequently. Surveyors also recorded Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule and brown long-eared occasionally. Another frequently used foraging area was recorded at listening point three where Mynydd Woods stream converges with the southern boundary woodland strip, an area of marshy grassland and a culvert which goes under the M4. Surveyors noted that this area is mainly used for foraging by common and soprano pipistrelles but with Myotis species also recorded frequently and noctule occasionally. Listening points two, four, eight and static detector location two were also prevalently used by foraging common and soprano pipistrelles. 6.1.3 Static Monitoring Surveys A moderate to high level of bat activity was recorded at all three static detector locations with monthly activity peaking at location three in August 2020 with over 4000 bat calls recorded across the five CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 17 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

nights of monitoring. The highest number of bat calls recorded throughout the whole of the monitoring period was recorded at location two with a total of 10,876 calls. This corresponds with the observations made at listening six during the activity transects as both locations are adjacent to the River Taff which is a key bat foraging resource. Static detector location one is positioned at the convergence of Mynydd Woods stream and the woodland along the boundary of the M4. It is also the south-western boundary of the overbridge site and located within proximity of the compound site. At this location a total of eight bat species were recorded comprising common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Nyctalus species (possibly Leisler’s bat), Myotis species (likely a mix of Daubentons’s bat, Natterer’s bat and whiskered/Brandt’s bat), brown long-eared, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe. The majority of bat calls at this location were made by common and soprano pipistrelles with 1,054 and 666 calls recorded respectively. This accounts for 75% of the bat calls recorded at this location throughout the monitoring period with Myotis species the next most frequently recorded accounting for 21% of all calls. Greater and lesser horseshoe were recorded only very occasionally with two lesser horseshoe calls recorded in April 2020 and one greater horseshoe call recorded in May 2020 suggesting that they pass the south-western boundary of the overbridge site very infrequently and not consistently. Static detector location two is positioned at the convergence of a hedgerow with the treeline along the River Taff. At the time of choosing the static detector locations this was the closest suitable and accessible location to the eastern boundary of the overbridge site which shares the same linear tree line with the chosen detector location. For consistency, the static detector locations remained the same for all months and so the detector position was not moved following the granting of access to Gelynis Farm in April 2020. At this location a total of ten bat species were recorded comprising common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Nyctalus species, serotine, Myotis species (mainly Daubenton’s bat), brown long-eared, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe. The vast majority of bat calls at this location were made by common and soprano pipistrelles with 5,873 and 4,588 calls recorded respectively. This accounts for over 96% of the bat calls recorded at this location throughout the monitoring period with Myotis and Nyctalus species the next most frequently recorded accounting for 1.4% and 1.3% of all calls respectively. Greater and lesser horseshoe were also recorded only very occasionally at this location with two greater horseshoe calls and seven lesser horseshoe calls recorded in May 2020 suggesting that they pass this part of the treeline very infrequently and not consistently. Static detector location three is positioned at the convergence of two hedgerows at the northern end of the transect route where listening point eight is located. Earlier designs for the overbridge involved severance of these hedgerows. At this location a total of ten bat species were recorded comprising common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, Nyctalus species, serotine, Myotis species (likely a mix of Daubentons’s bat, Natterer’s bat and whiskered/Brandt’s bat), brown long-eared, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe. The vast majority of bat calls at this location were made by common and soprano pipistrelles with 2,605 and 3,091 calls recorded respectively. This accounts for over 93% of the bat calls recorded at this location throughout the monitoring period with Myotis and Nyctalus species the next most frequently recorded accounting for 1.8% and 1.7% of all calls respectively. Greater and lesser horseshoe were also recorded only very occasionally with one lesser horseshoe call recorded in April 2020, one greater horseshoe call recorded in June 2020 and one greater horseshoe call and four lesser horseshoe calls recorded in July 2020 suggesting that they pass the convergence of these hedgerows very infrequently and not consistently. Whilst static monitoring cannot record detailed bat behaviour it does indicate that greater and lesser horseshoe bats are using the site across the bat active season but only occasionally as very low numbers of calls were recorded recorded in April, May, June and July and no calls were recorded during August, September and October. This suggests that the linear features surrounding the

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 18 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

overbridge and compound sites are unlikely to be important commuting routes for these two species. This is supported by the recorded timings of the calls at locations one and two which represent the western (exact location) and eastern (same linear feature) boundaries of the overbridge site as they do not show a pattern that would be consistent with regular commuting. The static monitoring data also suggests that more light-sensitive species (mainly Myotis species) are regularly using all three static detector locations to commute and/or forage.

6.2 Conclusions In conclusion, the overbridge and compound sites are used by a diverse range of common, uncommon and rare bat species for both foraging and commuting purposes. The woodland strips along the eastern and western boundaries of the transect route and the two hedgerows that connect at listening point eight are evidently well-established bat commuting routes that are used by a variety of common, uncommon and rare species with the majority being common and soprano pipistrelles. They are also likely to connect nearby roosts to the River Taff which is a major foraging resource, occasionally including greater and lesser horseshoes which are known to roost in areas to the north and north-west of the site and also occasionally the Gelynis Farm barn to the north of the overbridge site which is likely to be a night roost. The static monitoring and activity transect data indicates that removal or modification of these linear features could result in the severance of important commuting routes for common and soprano pipistrelle and some Myotis species and occasional commuting routes for the other species recorded. However, clearance along the western boundary of the overbridge site is being kept to a minimum with only four trees being removed from the north-west corner which avoids severance of the commuting route. Clearance of the eastern boundary has also been avoided as far as possible with only the RPA of one tree (T3) being impacted. The two hedgerows which connect at listening point eight will not undergo any clearance and will theref ore not be impacted. The sites also provide high-quality habitat which is being used for foraging by a variety of bat species, particularly at the eastern and western boundaries of the overbridge site which are adjacent to important ancient woodland and riverine habitats. This includes the Annex II species greater and lesser horseshoe, as evidenced by the static monitoring which occasionally recorded them within the overbridge site boundary. Any clearance of these habitats will cause a reduction in foraging area and prey availability for the bats that use the site. This also includes frequently recorded light- sensitive and low-flying Myotis species which bat call analysis has indicated are likely to be a mixture of Daubenton’s bat, Natterer’s bat and whiskered/Brandt’s bat. The overbridge and compound site are currently mostly dark at night with the only area of artificial lighting located at the Gelynis Farm farmhouse. Any temporary increase in light-levels could lead to the severance of commuting routes and the reduction of accessible foraging habitat for these species.

6.3 Recommendations The activity transect surveys have indicated that the woodland strips along the eastern and western boundaries of the overbridge and compound sites are regularly used by a variety of commuting and foraging bats including the Annex II species greater and lesser horseshoe. Therefore, it is recommended that the design avoids the clearance of these areas as far as is possible and that no linear vegetation features should be severed from their connection to the River Taff. Due to the unavoidable reduction in foraging area in the fields on both sides of the railway it is recommended that the drainage balancing ponds in both the flood compensation area and in the field on the eastern side of the railway should be enhanced with bat-friendly planting. This should include a range of pollinator-friendly wildflowers with night-scented flowers such as evening primrose (Oenanthe crocata) and meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) to attract night-flying insects. The native hedgerow planting should also include honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum). The storage ponds themselves will also create a new high-quality foraging area for bats by providing a damp habitat that will be re-planted with species of high value for biodiversity.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 19 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

The activity transect and static monitoring also indicated the presence of particularly light-sensitive bat species commuting and foraging across the overbridge and compound sites. As the area is currently dark at night it is recommended that any lighting required during construction is kept to a minimum and should be directional to avoid light spill onto the woodland commuting routes surrounding the site and most importantly the River Taff. No permanent lighting scheme is proposed. Following removal of vegetation in the areas either side of the railway tracks a temporary gap in linear habitat may be created. It is recommended that heras fencing with netting is used to maintain connectivity until the vegetation re-establishes. As an enhancement, it is also recommended that three bat boxes should be installed on suitable retained trees within the woodland strip along the River Taff at the eastern boundary of the overbridge site and two bat boxes within the mature trees to the south of the farmhouse. They should include a range of different box types with suitability for both crevice and hole -dwelling species; ideally a combination of Schwegler 2F, Schwegler 2F DFP and Schwegler 1FS.

7. References Ancient Woodland Inventory (2011). [online] Available at: https://lle.gov.wales/catalogue/item/AncientWoodlandInventory2011/?lang=en [Accessed 20th February 2020]. Collins (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/contents/made [Accessed 24th September 2019]. Middleton, N., Froud, A. and French, K. (2014) Social Calls of the Bats of Britain and Ireland. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter. Russ, J. (2012) British Bat Calls: A Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/contents [Accessed 24th September 2019].

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 20 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Appendix A: Figures

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 21 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-YPA-Y-EN-000251

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 22 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Appendix B: Photographs

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 23 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Photo 1: T1 Pedunculate oak with high bat roost Photo 2: T2 sycamore with low bat roost potential. potential.

Photo 3: T3 sweet chestnut with high bat roost Photo 4: T4 hazel with low bat roost potential. potential. CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 24 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Photo 5: T5 pedunculate oak with low bat roost Photo 6: T6 sycamore with low bat roost potential. potential.

Photo 7: T7 pedunculate oak with moderate bat roost potential.

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 25 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

Photo 8: Building B1. Photo 9: Building B2

CONFIDENTIAL TRAN01-KAW-R0-R2P-RPT-Y-EN-000034 26 DATE: 08/12/20 A01

CONFIDENTIAL Document Number 27 DATE: Revision