14DOCUMENT
Shepperton Studios Planning Application for Growth 2018
Ecological Assessment AUGUST 2018
Shepperton Studios
Ecological Assessment
Prepared by LUC August 2018
Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Edinburgh Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Lancaster London NW1 1JD FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper GIS & Visualisation [email protected] Manchester
Project Title: Shepperton Studios
Client: Shepperton Studio Ltd.
Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by
1.1 13/07/18 First Draft Issue David Green David Green David Green and Rebeca Turner
2.1 17/07/18 Second Issue David Green David Green David Green and Rebecca Turner
3.1 07/08/18 Third Issue David Green David Green David Green
4.2 13/08/18 Fourth Issue following client David Green David Green David Green comments
Shepperton Masterplan_Ecological Assessment Last saved: 13/08/2018 11:05 Contents
1 Executive Summary 3
2 Introduction 5 Site Description 5 Project Description 6 Policy and Legislation Considerations 6
3 Method 7 Desk Study 7 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 7 Bats 8 Great crested newt 12 Otter and Water Vole 13 Breeding Birds 15 Badger 18 Reptiles 19 Limitations and Constraints 21
4 Findings 24 Desk Study 24 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 30 Bats 32 Great Crested Newt 45 Otter and water Vole 45 Breeding Birds 47 Badger 53 Reptiles 53
5 Discussion 55 Designated Sites 55 Habitats 56 Bats 60 Great Crested Newt 63 Otter and water Vole 64 Breeding Birds 66 Badger 69 Reptiles 71
6 Conclusion 73
Appendix 1 75 Scheme Design 75
Appendix 2 76 Policy and Legislation 76
Appendix 3 80 Figures 80
Appendix 4 81 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Target Notes 81
Appendix 5 - Bat Survey Data 84 2016 Emergence/Re-entry Surveys 84 2016 Bat Activity Surveys 99 2016 Static Monitoring Survey Findings 111 2016 Bat Inspection Notes 118 2018 Building Inspection Notes – Laleham Nurseries 127 2018 Tree Inspection Notes – River Ash 129 2018 Emergence/Re-entry Surveys –Laleham Nurseries 131 2018 Static Monitoring Survey Findings 152
Appendix 6– Great Crested Newt Survey Data 154
Appendix 7 – Reptile Survey Data 161
Tables Table 3.1 Bat roost potential categories 8 Table 3.2: SMP Location Descriptions in 2016 10 Table 3.3: Location Descriptions in 2018 11 Table 3.4: Summer Bat Roost Types 11 Table 3.5 Resting Site Status Definitions 14 Table 3.6: Bird Survey Dates and Conditions 16 Table 3.7: Breeding Diversity Importance Thresholds 17 Table 3.8: Breeding Population Scores 18 Table 3.9: Index of Diversity Thresholds 18 Table 3.10: Classification of Badger Setts 19 Table 3.11: Reptile Population Class Sizes18 20 Table 4.1 Desk Study – Designated Sites 24 Table 4.2 Desk Study Findings – Species Records 28 Table 4.3: Assessment of Buildings with Bat Roost Potential 32 Table 4.4: Main Studio - Building Roosts 35 Table 4.5: Main Studio – Tree Roosts 35 Table 4.6: Laleham Nurseries – Building Roosts 35 Table 4.7: Summary of Anabat Registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect A, B and F) 37 Table 4.8: Summary of Anabat registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect C and E) 38 Table 4.9: Summary of Anabat Registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect D) 39 Table 4.10: Summary of Transect Anabat Registrations per Survey Night (All species), 2016 39 Table 4.11: Summary of Anabat Registrations by SMP Location 2016 41 Table 4.12: Summary of Anabat Registrations by SMP Location 2018 43 Table 4.13 Otter Survey Results 46 Table 4.14: Summary of notable bird records (species of conservation concern) within 2km 47 Table 4.15: Species of Conservation Concern Breeding Territories 48 Table 4.16: Summary of 2016 Reptile Survey. 54 Table 5.1: Summary of Habitat Enhancements 59 Table 5.2: Bat Avoidance and Mitigation 62 Table 5.3: Otter Avoidance and Mitigation 65 Table 5.4: Bird Avoidance and Mitigation 68 Table 5.5: Badger Avoidance and Mitigation 70
1 Executive Summary
1.1 In May 2018, LUC was appointed by Shepperton Studio Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment to accompany an outline planning application for a new Masterplan for Shepperton Studios in Surrey.
1.2 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’) extends to some 60 hectares, comprising three distinct parts:
• The existing Shepperton Studios site (11ha) • 39 ha of land located to the south-west and north-west of the existing Studios site including the existing backlots
• A segment of the River Ash corridor between Squires Bridge Road to the east and the application boundary to the west (10ha).
1.3 The ecological assessment was supported by a desk study and completion of surveys for protected species and habitats. This provided a detailed understanding of the Site’s ecology and was used to inform the Masterplan for the Site so that any adverse ecological impacts could be avoided, as far as possible, or minimised from the outset and net gain for biodiversity could be achieved in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
1.4 The majority of the Site, and where most of the development will be contained, is of negligible ecological value, comprising hardstandings, buildings, and areas which have been regularly subjected to extensive and ongoing disturbance.
1.5 The River Ash corridor was identified as a notable ecological feature within and adjacent to the Site and the wider landscape, providing a habitat resource for a range of protected species and habitat connectivity with the River Colne and the River Thames locally. However, the part of the River Ash corridor within and in proximity to the Site is lacking appropriate management, with limited structural or floristic diversity, and therefore its potential value is not currently being fulfilled. A ‘do nothing’ scenario would be expected to see a continuation of inappropriate management and a further reduction in the ecological value of the River Ash corridor.
1.6 The Site Masterplan has been sensitively designed from the outset to minimise impacts to key ecological features. Nevertheless, there is proposed bridge crossing over the River Ash which, in the absence of mitigation, would result in the permanent loss of localised areas of woodland and semi-improved neutral grassland. Habitat mitigation and enhancement will result in a significant increase in the extent and quality of woodland and scrub habitat and therefore the loss of localised areas of woodland habitat would be successfully mitigated in the medium to long term. The loss of semi-improved neutral grassland cannot be fully mitigated on a like-for-like basis, but the benefits associated with the creation and enhancement of alternative habitat types of principal importance, including wetlands, ponds, wet ditches, woodlands and scrub, would outweigh the loss of grassland habitat within the Site.
1.7 Habitats and features of importance for maintaining populations of protected species will be retained and enhanced as part of the scheme design and when the habitat mitigation and enhancement measures are taken into account, the effect on protected species would be beneficial. For example, diversification and management of the River Ash corridor and creation of new habitats of principal importance would be expected to benefit otter, fish, invertebrates, grass snake, birds and bats, whilst the provision of specific nesting features and wildlife planting as part of the scheme design would be expected to benefit specific birds of conservation concern such as song thrush, house sparrow, starling, spotted flycatcher, house martin, swift and kingfisher.
1.8 Following the provision of mitigation and enhancement measures an overall benefit for ecology is predicted. Such mitigation would include sensitive detailed scheme design which seeks to retain ecologically valuable features (e.g. mature trees), implementation of best practice working methods which minimise the risk of damage and disturbance during construction, by creating
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 3 July 2018
additional habitats of principal importance, strengthening linear corridors, and providing beneficial management which would maximise the value of both the River Ash corridor and the wider Site and landscape in perpetuity.
1.9 In summary, prior to mitigation, the construction phase of the proposals would result in localised impacts to habitats and species in the short term. However, when mitigation and enhancement measures are considered, the scheme would provide significant benefits for the Sites ecology in the medium to long term by increasing the value of retained habitats, providing new habitats of high ecological value, strengthening ecological corridors, increasing resilience to habitat fragmentation and climate change, and providing beneficial management in perpetuity. All of which would contribute to providing net gain for biodiversity in accordance with the NPPF.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 4 July 2018
2 Introduction
2.1 In May 2018, LUC was appointed by Shepperton Studio Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment to accompany an outline planning application for a new Masterplan for Shepperton Studios in Surrey.
2.2 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’) extends to some 60 hectares, comprising three distinct parts:
• The existing Shepperton Studios site (11ha) • 39 ha of land located to the south-west and north-west of the existing Studios site including the existing backlots
• A segment of the River Ash corridor between Squires Bridge Road to the east and the application boundary to the west (10ha).
2.3 LUC was originally appointed in 2016 to undertake ecological surveys at the Site to establish an ecological baseline for the proposed development. This suite of ecological surveys included a Phase 1 Habitat survey, bat roost and activity surveys, and surveys for great crested newt, otter, water vole, breeding birds, reptiles and badger.
2.4 In 2018, an updated walkover survey was completed to verify previous site conditions and additional surveys were completed for bats, badger and otter. This baseline ecological information was then used to inform the Masterplan for the Site so that any adverse ecological impacts could be avoided, as far as possible, or minimised from the outset and net gain for biodiversity could be achieved in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
2.5 The Ecological Assessment comprises a desk study, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, and specific faunal surveys as listed above. This report presents the ecological baseline for the Site, including requirements for avoidance and mitigation of ecological impacts and also sets out the ecological benefits of the scheme, with recommendations provided to maximise these benefits in the long term.
2.6 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Pinewood Studios Group. No part of this report should be considered as legal advice. This report does not provide a formal Ecological Impact Assessment. Indeed, in light of the sensitive scheme design and minimisation of ecological impacts from the outset, it was agreed with Spelthorne Borough Council that ‘Ecology’ be scoped out of the EIA.
Site Description
2.7 The Site is located within the Borough of Spelthorne, approximately 2.5km south-west of Staines- upon-Thames, Surrey (central grid reference TQ062687).
2.8 The Site includes the existing Shepperton Studios complex. This lies in east and northeast of the Site, to the north of the River Ash, and comprises numerous buildings and hardstanding, with minimal semi-natural habitat. A grassland field at the northern edge of the site currently supports an overflow car park for the Studios.
2.9 The southern part of the Site comprises a ‘backlot’ located to the South of the River Ash corridor, which separates the two areas. Much of the backlot has historically been used as an aggregate extraction site, and has recently been restored and reinstated as bare ground seeded with amenity grassland. The northwest part of the backlot is currently used for set construction and filming. The backlot also supports minimal semi-natural habitat.
2.10 The southwest of the Site comprises the former Laleham Nurseries site. A collection of disused buildings and greenhouses which previously supported a horticultural nursery.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 5 July 2018
2.11 The northwest part of the Site comprises sheep grazed grassland bordered by the River Ash woodland corridor to the south and west, and residential development to the east which is separated from the Site by a linear belt of semi-natural broadleaved woodland.
2.12 The Site is abutted to the north by the Queen Mary Reservoir, to the south by the Shepperton Road, and to the east by the settlement of Littleton. The wider area comprises a mosaic of sub- urban settlements, pastoral and arable farmland.
2.13 The River Ash corridor runs through the central part of the Site and comprises a linear corridor of broadleaved woodland which incorporates a range of wetland habitats and dense scrub. Given its ecological interest, the wider River Ash corridor including those areas outside the Site boundary was included in the baseline surveys and this corridor represents a key consideration in this report.
Project Description
2.14 The project description accompanying the outline application is as follows: “Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access) for the redevelopment and expansion of Shepperton Studios, comprising the partial demolition and replacement of existing accommodation; construction of new sound stages, workshops, office accommodation, entrance structures and reception, security offices and backlots; creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from Shepperton Road and the relocation of existing access off Studios Road; with associated car parking; landscaping and ecological enhancements”
Policy and Legislation Considerations
2.15 The assessment has been prepared in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. Further detail is provided in Appendix 2, however the primary documents are of relevance:
• The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 (as amended); • The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW Act), 2000 (as amended); • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act), 2006; • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; and • The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 • The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012); • The Spelthorne Local Plan; and • Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 6 July 2018
3 Method
3.1 The methods adopted in the survey and assessment are outlined below. They accord with the best practice guidance documents for survey and appraisal produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management1 and the British Standards Institute2.
3.2 Baseline surveys of habitats and species were originally completed in 2016. This information was used to guide sensitive scheme design and any requirement for further survey updates. Typically, ecological baseline data is considered to remain valid for 2-3 years depending on the ecological nature of the Site. Importantly, additional targeted surveys were completed for bats, otter and badger in May-July 2018. This included a site walkover survey which confirmed that relevant site conditions identified by the 2016 surveys remained valid. As a result, the approach set out below was considered robust and accurate in informing this assessment.
Desk Study
3.3 To provide additional background to the assessment and to highlight likely features or species groups of interest, a study of available biological records was undertaken to identify sites designated for their nature conservation value, and existing records of protected or notable species of relevance to the Site. A search of the following resources was undertaken:
• The Surrey Biodiversity Information Centre (SuBIC) – to identify existing records of protected or notable species (2km), statutory (5km) and non-statutory (2km) designated sites;
• Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC); • Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping; and • Aerial photography; 3.4 The absence of a species from biological records cannot be taken to represent actual absence. Species distribution patterns should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect survey/reporting effort rather than actual distribution.
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
3.5 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken within the Site boundary in line with standard methods3.
3.6 Phase 1 Habitat Survey provides a rapid means of classifying broad habitat types in any given terrestrial site.
3.7 The survey was ‘extended’ by considering the suitability of the Site to support notable or protected flora or fauna. Species considered included those identified during the desk study, or those considered appropriate by the surveyor during the survey. Consideration was given to the Site’s potential to provide sheltering or foraging habitat and/or connectivity to allow dispersal between populations.
1 Survey guidance is available at http://www.cieem.net/sources-of-survey-methods-sosm- and appraisal guidance is available at http://www.cieem.net/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea-.
2 British Standards Institute (2013). BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development. 3 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. JNCC, Peterborough.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 7 July 2018
3.8 The survey was undertaken on 24th March 2016 by Peter Lawrence BSc, MSc, MCIEEM and Lorna Roberts BSc (hons), MSc, MCIEEM. Weather conditions during the survey were cool, overcast and dry. An updated site walkover was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to this assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat baseline information provide herein is therefore considered valid and robust in informing this assessment.
Bats
3.9 Bat surveys and desk study were originally completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, an updated site walkover survey was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to the bat assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. The survey walkover and review of the updated design identified ‘gaps’ in the baseline and as a result additional targeted surveys were completed in 2018, including bat tree assessments to inform bridge crossing locations, roost surveys of the Laleham Nurseries (not previously accessible in 2016), and additional static monitoring of two locations along the River Ash corridor. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of bats.
Initial Bat Inspection
3.10 An external and internal inspection was undertaken of all buildings and trees within the Site (excluding Laleham Nurseries buildings) likely to be affected. The buildings and trees at the main studio were surveyed on 15th March 2016 by Lorna Roberts BSc, MSc, ACIEEM (NE Licence no. 2015-14448-CLS-CLS) and David Green BSc, MCIEEM (NE Licence no. 2015-15512-CLS-CLS).
3.11 Further inspections of buildings at Laleham Nurseries were completed on 6th July 2017 and trees along the River Ash in May 2018 by Rebecca Turner GradCIEEM (NE Licence no. 2016-25139-CLS- CLS). These surveys were carried out in accordance with best practice guidelines4.
3.12 The external inspection comprised a detailed search for external features with potential to support access points and roosting places suitable for bats, and to locate evidence of bat activity, such as droppings, staining, feeding remains and live/dead specimens. A high powered torch (LED Lenser) was used to inspect the building.
3.13 This was followed by an internal inspection, which consisted of a systematic search to identify potential access points, roosting places and signs of bat activity. In addition to this, the surrounding habitats were observed and described in relation to their suitability to support foraging and commuting bats, as well as potential links to surrounding habitats of value to bats.
3.14 Following these inspections, the Bat Roost Potential of buildings and trees was classified in accordance with due consideration for best practice guidance, and as summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Bat roost potential categories
Suitability Description Further survey implications
Confirmed Bats or evidence of bats recorded, Works affecting a roost are licensable. bat roost both of recent and/or historic Further survey required to determine the activity. bat species present, nature of roost and level of use before mitigation is can be determined.
High A structure or tree with one or more Three separate survey visits. Of which, at potential roost sites that are least one dusk emergence and a separate obviously suitable for use by large dawn re-entry survey.
4 JNCC (2004) Bat Workers’ Manual – 3rd Edition, JNCC, Peterborough; Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines – 2nd Edition, London.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 8 July 2018
Suitability Description Further survey implications
numbers of bats on a more regular Subject to initial survey findings, the level basis and potentially for longer of survey effort required may be reviewed. periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions5 and surrounding habitat.
Low A structure with one or more A single survey visit is required for potential roost sites that could be buildings used by individual bats No further survey is required for trees opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide Subject to initial survey findings, the level enough space, shelter, protection, of survey effort required may be reviewed. appropriate conditions4 and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation).
Negligible Negligible habitat features on site No further survey or mitigation required. likely to be used by roosting bats.
Emergence/Re-entry Surveys
3.15 Three emergence/re-entry surveys were undertaken for all buildings identified with bat roost potential to identify the presence or likely absence of bat roosts, as well as identify roost type, status and characteristics for any confirmed roosts (e.g. roost dimensions, access points and flight paths). These surveys were undertaken by experienced bat surveyors between May and August 2016 for buildings at the main studio and between June and July 2018 for buildings at Laleham Nurseries.
3.16 The survey method followed best practice guidance. The dusk emergence survey commenced at least 15 minutes before sunset and lasted for at least 1.5 hours after sunset. During the survey, experienced bat surveyors were positioned around the building such that all aspects could be observed simultaneously.
3.17 Surveys were conducted using Bat Box Duet and Anabat Express heterodyne and frequency division detectors. Bat sonograms were recorded for subsequent analysis and species identification using Analook software (if required).
3.18 Bat foraging and commuting activity was also recorded during the surveys, with species, number, time and direction of flight recorded to gain an understanding of how the Site is utilised by foraging or commuting bats.
3.19 Weather conditions during the surveys are provided in Appendix 5. Infra-red Camera Surveys
3.20 An infra-red camera was also used during the surveys in 2016 to provide additional accuracy in pinpointing entrances of roosts and identifying species and numbers of bats using the roosts. An infra-red capable camera and infra-red lamp were set up in the vicinity of previously identified roost locations and left recording for the duration of a given survey. The footage was reviewed by experienced bat surveyors to confirm species and counts of bats emerging from/re-entering the roosts. This method was only used on buildings where roosts had previously been identified.
5 For example, in terms of temperature, humidity, height above ground level, light levels or levels of disturbance.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 9 July 2018
Bat Activity Surveys
3.21 Activity transects were carried out in order to provide an overview of bat activity within the Site as a whole, whilst also identifying levels of bat activity in specific areas. The routes of transects are shown in Figure 2.2, Appendix 3. Transect routes were revised as the surveys progressed in response to the emergence of preferred development options and survey findings.
3.22 Each transect incorporated key habitat features likely to provide opportunities for bat foraging and commuting, such as woodland edges and tree lines, with particular focus on areas likely to be affected by development proposals.
3.23 Monthly transect surveys were undertaken between April and September 2016 to coincide with optimal seasonal bat activity and in accordance with best practice guidance. Surveys were completed during suitable dry, mild weather conditions. Dusk surveys began at least 15 minutes prior to sunset and continued until at least 2 hours after sunset. Dawn transects began at least 1.5 hours prior to sunrise and continued until at least 15 minutes after sunrise, or until activity ceased (whichever was later).
3.24 All transects were walked at a suitably slow pace with the transect route and the locations of bat recordings mapped using GPS. On each survey occasion, transects were walked in both directions by a single surveyor.
3.25 All bat calls were listened to using a suitable heterodyne bat detector (e.g. BatBox Duet) and was recorded in parallel with a frequency division zero-crossing Anabat detector (either Anabat SD2 or Anabat Express), in addition to written records. Where required, bat call recordings were later analysed using Analook sonogram analysis software to increase the confidence of species identification. Further information about the surveys, including weather conditions is provided in Appendix 5.
Static Monitoring Surveys
3.26 To provide additional data concerning use of the Site by bats, a Static Monitoring Point (SMP) survey was carried out between April and October 2016. This was followed by additional SMP surveys in 2018 at two locations along the River Ash to inform more specific proposals to implement a road and footbridge.The SMP locations are shown in Figure 2.3 and 2.5, Appendix 3 and described below in Tables 3.2 and 3.3.
3.27 SMP locations were chosen to incorporate strategic features in the landscape likely to be of greatest importance for commuting and foraging (i.e. edges of grassland, woodland and water bodies) as well as taking into consideration areas of potential impact such as locations close to potential future development locations, such as the existing River Ash crossing which provides access between the north and south of the Site.
3.28 Detectors were left out for five to ten consecutive nights per month in order to collect sufficient data for analysis. Further information about the SMP surveys, including weather conditions is provided in Appendix 5.
Table 3.2: SMP Location Descriptions in 2016
Reference Location Description
1 Located within the semi-natural broadleaved woodland along the River Ash corridor. Attached to a tree overlooking the River Ash, close to the existing pedestrian footbridge which connects the main Studio with southern Backlots.
2 Attached to a mature oak tree west of the studios, within the semi-natural broadleaved woodland which comprises the River Ash Corridor, positioned facing the river.
3 Attached to a mature tree at the eastern edge of the northwest grassland. Located within linear semi-natural broadleaved woodland at the edge of sheep-grazed grassland.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 10 July 2018
Reference Location Description
4 Located at the edge of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and sheep-grazed pasture at the western edge of the northwest grassland in close proximity to the River Ash.
Table 3.3: Location Descriptions in 2018
Reference Location Description
1 Located on an island within semi-natural broadleaved woodland along the River Ash corridor. Attached to a tree in an area of open woodland, which is to include a road bridge as per the proposals.
2 Location within semi-natural broadleaved woodland to the south of the River Ash. Attached to a tree within the woodland, in an area that is to be affected by proposals to include a footbridge.
Bat Call Sonogram Analysis Bat Calls
3.29 Bat calls recorded using Anabat Express or Anabat SD2 detectors were analysed using Analook software. All calls were analysed for transects and static monitoring points, whilst roost data was only analysed where notable bat records were recorded (e.g. bat roost emergence/re-entry and/or recording of species which could not be identified accurately using heterodyne detectors. Interpreting Roost Type
3.30 Bats utilise a number of different roosts throughout the year, with different types of roosts dependent on use by bats. Table 3.4 below describes the different roosts types referred to during this report.
Table 3.4: Summer Bat Roost Types
Summer Bat Roost Types
Maternity Roost (May-August)
• Where females give birth and raise their young to independence. • In some species, males may also be present. Satellite Roost (May – August)
• An alternative roost found in close proximity to the main nursery colony used by a few individual breeding females to small groups of breeding females throughout the breeding season. Transitional/Occasional Roost (April-September)
• Used by a few individuals or occasionally small groups for generally short periods of time on waking from hibernation or in the period prior to hibernation. Mating Site (September – November)
• Where mating takes place from late summer and can continue through winter. Day Roost (March-November)
• A place where individual bats, or small groups of males rest or shelter in the day but are rarely found at night in the summer. Feeding Roost (May-November)
• A place where individual bats or a few individuals rest or feed during the night but are
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 11 July 2018
Summer Bat Roost Types
rarely present by day.
Great crested newt
3.31 Great Crested Newt (GCN) surveys were completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, a review of the existing baseline data in respect of this species was completed. In addition, an updated site walkover survey was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to the GCN assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. For example, no new waterbodies were identified within 500m, and with functional connectivity to the Site. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of GCN.
Habitat Assessment Terrestrial Habitat
3.32 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey included an assessment, based on the professional judgement of experienced surveyors, of potential terrestrial habitats within the Site to support Great Crested Newt (GCN). Habitat features which may support GCN in their terrestrial phase may include:
• Woodland and scrub; • Rough grassland and /or tall ruderal communities; and • Dead wood, rubble piles or similar features which may provide sheltering opportunities. 3.33 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey also included an assessment of the suitability of accessible waterbodies within or close to the Site for breeding GCN. Waterbodies - Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) 3.34 The HSI2 is a numerical index between 0 and 1 and incorporates ten suitability indices (factors thought to affect GCN presence including waterbody size, levels of over-shading and macrophyte cover). 1 indicates optimal habitat and 0 indicates unsuitable habitat. An HSI was carried out at the same time as the Phase 1 Habitat Survey to determine the relative suitability of waterbodies to provide suitable breeding habitat for GCN.
eDNA Survey
3.35 Sampling for eDNA was carried out in May 2016 for four waterbodies located between 200 and 500 metres to the west of the Site boundary. The survey was to confirm presence/absence of GCN, and to inform requirements for further ‘full’ GCN surveys. The location of the waterbodies is provided in Figure 3.1, in Appendix 3.
3.36 Samples were taken using the methods outlined in best practice guidance6 (summarised below). Sample kits comprised 1 sterile bag, 2 pairs of sterile gloves, 1 sterile 30 mL sampling ladle, a sample box containing 6 x 50 mL sample tubes two thirds full of preserving fluid; 1 sterile 10 mL pipette. A new sample kit was used at each pond to ensure cross contamination of samples was avoided.
3.37 In line with best practice guidance 20 samples of 30 ml of water were collected from around the waterbodies. Sample locations were spread out evenly around the waterbody edges, ensuring that samples were collected from both open water and vegetated areas, if present, and where possible from areas of water greater than 10cm deep. Once all 20 samples were collected the bag was closed and shaken for 10 seconds to ensure any DNA present was mixed across the sample. 15 ml
6 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 12 July 2018
of water was then transferred from the bag into each of the 6 sample tubes containing preservative. Finally each tube was shaken for 10 seconds to mix the water sample and preservative. Samples were then sent to the relevant laboratory for analysis and confirmation of GCN absence or presence.
Waterbody Survey 3.38 Following confirmation of GCN presence in some of the waterbodies, it was decided to complete full GCN waterbody surveys for each of the four waterbodies in line with a precautionary approach and best practice guidance7.
3.39 Where possible, three of the four recognised survey methods were completed during each of the surveys, including bottle trapping, torching and egg searching. The survey visits were undertaken in suitable weather conditions during April and May 2016. Further details, including survey dates and weather conditions are provided in Appendix 6.
Population Estimate
3.40 The GCN population size class was estimated using waterbody survey results and in accordance with best practice guidance7. Figures presented below relate to the highest count of GCN obtained using any one survey method on any single survey visit (‘maximum count’):
• Small population for a maximum count of up to 10; • Medium population for maximum counts of between 11 and 100; and • Large population for maximum counts of over 100.
Otter and Water Vole
3.41 Otter and water vole surveys were completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, a review of the existing baseline data in respect of these species was completed. In addition, an updated site walkover survey was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to the water vole assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. Furthermore, because otters will utilise and rely upon a range of shelters, an updated otter survey was completed in May 2018. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of otter and water vole.
Habitat Assessment
3.42 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey included an assessment of the Site’s habitats to support riparian mammals, based on the professional judgement of experienced surveyors. This identified the River Ash corridor as providing optimal foraging habitat for otter and sub-optimal to unsuitable habitat for water vole.
Field Survey
3.43 The River Ash and associated woodland and riparian habitat was surveyed on the 24th of March 2016 for the presence of otter and water vole signs, and again for otter in May 2018. The survey area included a 1,640m stretch of the river, from woodland beyond the north-west boundary of the Site where the river is relatively narrow, to Squires Bridge, located downstream to the southeast of the Site. The survey area is shown in Figure 4.1, in Appendix 3. The survey was carried out in accordance with relevant best practice guidance8&9 during suitable weather conditions.
7 English Nature (now Natural England), 2001. Great crested newt mitigation guidelines
8 Chanin, P (2003) Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough. 9 SNH. 2015. Assessing the imoacts of development. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/wildlife- and-you/otters/assessing/. [Accessed 25 August 15].
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 13 July 2018
3.44 The field survey included a search of the area shown in Figure 4.1, for evidence of these species. For otter, particular attention was paid to important riverine habitat features such as in-stream islands and marginal vegetation. Bridge structures and other similar features were also searched, as they are common spraint locations for territory marking. Evidence of otter presence was considered to include:
• Resting places such as holts and couches (usually confirmed by additional field signs as listed below);
• Tracks, slides and runs; • Spraint (fresh, recent or old); • Anal jelly; and • Feeding remains. 3.45 For water vole, particular attention was paid to areas of luxuriant marginal vegetation and sloping banks in the vicinity of riparian habitat, as these locations are often favoured for siting burrows. Evidence of water vole presence was considered to include:
• Latrines/droppings. • Sightings. • Feeding remains; and • Tracks. 3.46 With regard to otter resting places the following definitions are used: • Holt – An underground or fully enclosed structure used by otters for shelter for longer duration, e.g. enlarged rabbit holes or rock piles;
• Hover – An area partially enclosed, e.g. undercut bank under exposed tree roots, not offering the full protection of a holt, but with some form of overhead cover;
• Couch – An above-ground but concealed area, usually open to the sky, used by otter for grooming or brief periods of rest, often found in dense vegetation such as bramble or reed bed; and
• Natal den – a shelter (above or below ground) where otter young are born and remain until mobile (typically located in undisturbed areas, often on minor water courses, and where flood risk is low).
3.47 The assessment of resting site status is determined by the quality of the feature and the ability to provide key requirements for otters. This can be cover and seclusion for an individual to sleep or rest; the provision of nursery or breeding habitat (including potential for a natal holt); and the supply of critical factors such as feeding resources (ponds, marshy grassland), freshwater for cleaning and drinking, and the provision of suitable seclusion away from disturbance. The assessment is subjective and corroborated by the abundance of field evidence located in, or around, the feature. Diagnostic evidence such as spraints (including number and age class), urination “green” spots, spraint mounds, sign heaps, grooming hollows, footprints, paths and slides (and their estimated degree of use) is interpreted to determine the status of the feature. Table 3.5 below describes the approach used to define resting site status.
Table 3.5 Resting Site Status Definitions
Resting site Definition status
A structure or feature with limited evidence of otter activity, indicated by low number of spraints present and all age classes may not be present (i.e. one Low fresh spraint, or a couple of old spraints). The structure will not be suitable as a breeding/natal site and is unlikely to afford sufficient seclusion to be an important resting site. It is unlikely to have important links to the key otter requirements (food and freshwater). This type of site is more likely to provide
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 14 July 2018
Resting site Definition status
a temporary “stop off” for otters when moving throughout their territory. Loss/disturbance of such a feature is unlikely to be significant in terms of the individual or population.
A structure or habitat feature containing spraint of a range of age classes, but not in significant quantities. Paths may be present leading to the feature but are not likely to be overly pronounced. The cover afforded by the structure may be limited or the site may only be suitable at certain times of year. Alternatively it may not available at periods of high tide/ flow. The structure is unlikely to be suitable as a breeding/ natal site but will afford suitable Moderate seclusion as a resting site and may be linked to other important features within the territory. (Feeding/grooming breeding areas). The impact arising from a loss or disturbance of such a feature will be determined by the availability of more suitable or well used sites within an otter’s territory. The absence of other suitable resting sites within a survey reach may elevate the status of the resting site.
The structure or habitat feature has a high level of otter activity, indicated by an abundance of spraint of all age classes and may include large spraint mounds or well used grooming hollows. On occasion the spraints are all old but of such abundance to indicate a high status feature but that hasn’t been used recently.
The site may have a strong otter odour. Paths or slides leading to or from the feature will often be well worn and pronounced. High status resting sites often provide a high degree of cover and are usually coupled with key features such as fresh water and abundance of prey. The area may be High suitable as a breeding area, for example with quality nursery habitat supplying pools for swimming and hunting practice and may afford safe features for provision of a natal den. A natal den may not have pronounced presence of spraint, and is likely to be located in a highly secluded area protected from disturbance, for example by an island or dense vegetation. A key requirement of natal dens is protection from flooding, which is a significant threat to young cubs. Couch features may only be used during the summer months, but occupied year after year which also indicates high status.
Camera Trap Survey
3.48 A remote camera trap survey was deployed beneath the existing pedestrian footbridge which crosses the River Ash between the Main Studio and the Backlots to the south, between 16 May and 11 June 2016. On 11 June 2016 due to difficulties with accessing the camera, it was repositioned beneath an adjacent bridge in the vicinity which spanned a smaller branch of the River Ash. The camera remained in situ until 1 September 2016. In total, the camera trap was deployed and functional for approximately four and a half months. The approximate position of the camera trap is shown in Figure 4.1, in Appendix 3.
Breeding Birds
3.49 Breeding bird surveys were completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, a review of the existing baseline data in respect of this species was completed. In addition, an updated site walkover survey was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to the breeding bird
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 15 July 2018
assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. Where differences of relevance to breeding birds occurred, for example the loss of former ephemeral habitats in the southwest corner of the Site, this was taken into account in the interpretation of survey findings presented below. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of breeding birds.
Breeding Bird Survey (Common Bird Census)
3.50 The survey method was conducted in line with a modified Common Birds Census (CBC) method10, and is described below:
• The survey area was separated into north and south areas, as shown in all figures in Appendix 3. The survey area incorporated a much wider area than the Site application boundary, because the aim was to gain a comprehensive baseline which included adjacent habitats and was suitable for informing feasibility assessments of a range of potential scheme options.
• The north section included woodland along the River Ash and all areas of the Site to the north including the Studios, northern backlot (overflow car park and grassland), and northwest grassland field. The south section included all areas of the Site to the south of the River Ash woodland corridor including the backlot to the south, and arable farmland and mineral extraction operations to the west of the Site.
• Visits were completed between April-June 2016 inclusive. This enabled the survey to record early and late (typically migrant) breeding species.
• The north and south sections were subject to five and four survey visits respectively. • During each survey visit the survey area was slowly walked and the location and behaviour of each bird species marked on a map.
• Additional anecdotal records were also collected during other baseline surveys completed at the Site, for example during bat and badger surveys.
• British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) standard species codes11 were used along with qualifying symbols relating to the activity observed. For example, WR encircled denotes a singing wren.
• Survey map information was subsequently transferred to individual species maps for notable species whereby further scrutiny enabled the number of breeding territories of notable species to be estimated.
3.51 Surveys commenced shortly after dawn and continued until mid-morning in order to cover the period of greatest territorial activity for most bird species.
3.52 Given the size of the Site, in line with CBC recommendations12, only a single survey section could be surveyed per day. Survey dates in 2016 and the weather conditions during each survey visit were as shown in Table 3.6 below.
Table 3.6: Bird Survey Dates and Conditions
Survey Survey Date Weather Conditions No. Area
North Survey Area
1 North 21/04/2016 10°C, dry cool, still, patchy cloud
2 North 06/05/2016 21°C, dry, warm, still, sunny
10 Gilbert, G., D.W. Gibbons and J. Evans (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods RSPB 11 http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u16/downloads/forms_instructions/bto_bird_species_codes.pdf 12 CBC advises the maximum area that can be adequately covered in a visit is 50 – 100 ha, dependent on the number of hedgerows and woody areas. For woodland the area is 10 – 20 ha.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 16 July 2018
Survey Survey Date Weather Conditions No. Area
3 North 12/05/2016 16°C, damp, light haze, still, scattered cloud
4 North 24/05/2016 17°C , dry, warm, still, sunny
5 North 07/06/2016 20°C, dry, warm, still, sunny
South Survey Area
1 South 05/05/2016 22°C, dry, warm, still, sunny
2 South 11/05/2016 18°C, damp, muggy, still, cloudy
3 South 26/05/2016 10°C, dry, cool, still, cloudy
4 South 14/06/2016 17°C, warm, still, cloudy, dry during survey, occasional showers before and after survey.
Assessment of Bird Communities
3.53 The assessment of bird communities present within the Site follows best practice guidance (Fuller, 1980)13 and is used to determine Breeding Diversity. The assessment considers the following factors: Population Size
3.54 Conservation value is expressed at five geographic scales of importance: international, national, regional, county and local. Clearly, these assessments can only be made where reasonable population estimates already exist at each level.
3.55 A site supporting a single territory of a species numbering less than 100 pairs nationally is classified as regionally important. However, single territories of species which are not nationally rare, although they may be above the 1% level of the recorded county or regional population would be regarded as of local or county importance. Diversity
3.56 Fuller (1980) presents breeding diversity criteria, the number of breeding species, to assess the importance of a site to birds in the breeding season, as shown in Table 3.7 below.
Table 3.7: Breeding Diversity Importance Thresholds
National Regional County Local
85+ 84-70 69-50 49-25
3.57 The quality of the breeding community considers the number of scarce species, considered to be those with a national population of less than 100,000 pairs. These are divided into five categories and species falling within each abundance category are scored from 1 – 5 as shown in Table 3.8 below.
13 Fuller, R.J. (1980) A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation Biol. Cons. 17:229-239.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 17 July 2018
Table 3.8: Breeding Population Scores Category National Number of Score Breeding Pairs
A 1 – 10 5
B 11 – 100 4
C 101 – 1000 3
D 1001 – 10,000 2
E 10,001 – 100,000 1
3.58 The presence of one species in Category B (1 x 4), two in C (2 x 3), three in D (3 x 2) and 10 in E (10 x 1) would give an index or score of 26.
3.59 This is referred to as the Index of Diversity. The ranges of indices are appropriate to the various levels of conservation importance as detailed in Table 3.9 below:
Table 3.9: Index of Diversity Thresholds
NATIONAL Regional County Local
60+ 59-40 39-20 19-10
Rarity
3.60 Fuller (1980) considers any species numbering 1000 or fewer breeding pairs to be nationally rare. In this assessment this category includes species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, species considered by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP) (e.g. Ogilvie, 2003) and species included in the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) (e.g. Gregory et al, 2003). Red List bird species are those whose UK breeding population, or breeding range, has contracted by 50% or more in the preceding 25 years.
3.61 Fuller’s criteria are drawn from data supplied for the compilation of the BTO’s Register of Ornithological Sites which was mostly gathered between 1973 and 1977. Since that time significant decreases have occurred in many bird populations and it is possible that the qualifying diversity levels will also have reduced. It is thought that no similar diversity analysis has been conducted since that time. However, population estimates are frequently revised and, in this report, Baker et al (2006)14 has been used.
Badger
3.62 Badger survey was originally completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, a review of the existing baseline data in respect of this species was completed. Because badger will make new shelters, an updated survey was completed in May 2018. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of badger.
Habitat Assessment 3.63 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey the Site was assessed for the suitability of habitats to support badger. Particular attention was paid to areas of woodland, scrub and boundary habitats within
14 Baker, H., Stroud, D.A., Aebischer, N.J., Cranswick, P.A., Gregory, R.D., McSorley, C.A., Noble, D.G. & Rehfisch, M.M. (2006) Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 99: 25–44
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 18 July 2018
the Site, especially areas with freely sloping ground or banks. These are often favoured by badger because they provide suitable areas for foraging and sett building.
Badger Survey 3.64 An inspection of all habitat types suitable for badger was undertaken across the Site between May and July 2016, including an approximate 50m buffer from the site boundary where accessible. The survey was updated in May 2018. All signs of activity were mapped including setts, footprints, paths, dung, latrines and hairs. Any incidental records identified during other ecological surveys were also incorporated.
3.65 Any setts located were classified by the number of entrance holes and level of activity (the later based on the ‘openness’ of the hole15). This is summarised in Table 3.10, below.
Table 3.10: Classification of Badger Setts
Sett type
A breeding sett, these usually have 5-20 entrances. These are large, well- Main established setts, normally in continuous use. Each group will use only one main sett and it will form the most likely location for the raising of cubs. These setts are usually found in close association with the main sett, and Annexe will often be linked to it by a well-worn path. Where a second litter of cubs is born they will be raised in the annexe sett. Subsidiary setts will usually have five or more holes, although not all of Subsidiary these will be in continuous use. These setts are used on an occasional basis and will usually consist of only Outlying one to three holes. Spoil heaps will generally be smaller than those found associated with the other sett types, indicating a smaller underground structure.
Level of activity
Holes in regular use and are therefore free of debris. They may have been Well used recently excavated. Debris, including leaves, twigs and other vegetation clutter the entrance to Partially used these holes, indicating they are not in regular use. The holes can be used after a minimum of clearance. A considerable amount of clearance is needed before these holes can be Disused used. The holes may become so blocked that only a depression in the ground is visible where the hole used to be.
Reptiles
3.66 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey included an assessment, based on the professional judgement of experienced surveyors, of potential habitats within the Site to support reptiles. Habitat features which may support reptiles include those as described above for GCN, with the addition of south facing, sunny areas (particularly banks), and transition zones between areas of scrub, grassland and bar ground which provide optimal conditions of basking and shelter.
3.67 Reptiles surveys were completed in 2016 to inform scheme design and early option feasibility stages. Following refinements to the scheme design, a review of the existing baseline data in respect of these species was completed. In addition, an updated site walkover survey was completed in May 2018 which confirmed that site conditions of relevance to the reptile assessment remained consistent with the findings of the 2016 survey. As a result, the survey effort completed to date, as detailed below, is considered accurate and robust in informing this assessment in respect of reptiles.
15 Harris et. Al. (1989) Surveying Badgers. Mammal Society
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 19 July 2018
Survey 3.68 A reptile survey was carried out between May and August 2016, in accordance with best practice guidelines16&17. Areas deemed to be most suitable for reptiles within both the Site and the wider area were subject to a refugia survey.
3.69 A total of 91 artificial refugia, comprising of roofing felt mats (all approximately 1m x 0.5m), were placed in areas of suitable habitat around the Site on 19 May 2016. These were then left for a period of 10 days to allow any reptiles to become accustomed to them. The refugia were then checked on seven occasions during suitable weather conditions between May and August 2016.
3.70 Refugia were placed in the following areas of the Site (refugia locations are shown in Figure 6.1, Appendix 3):
• Area A: Along a bund and around a raised area of marshy grassland and tall ruderal habitat within the minerals extraction area to the south-west of the Site;
• Area B: An area of marshy grassland and tall ruderal habitat at the edge of the mineral extraction area to the southwest of the Site; and
• Area C: Areas of rough grassland adjacent to scrub and woodland edge habitats in the centre of the Site to the south of the River Ash, and within the north of the Site to the west of the overflow car park. 3.71 Suitable weather conditions are generally considered to include dry sunny spells, particularly after rainfall, periods of intermittent sunshine, and also warm but cloudy days. Optimal air temperatures between 9oC and 18oC18 are preferred. Further detail, including survey dates and weather conditions are provided in Appendix 7.
3.72 Many reptile species, particularly grass snake, adder and common lizard will bask in the open where appropriate habitat micro-niches occur, particularly along the southern edge of scrub and tussocky vegetation. A key requirement is the ability to escape into nearby vegetation, and to shelter from prevailing winds. As a result, ecological surveyors, whom are experienced in locating reptiles visually, remained vigilant for their presence whilst undertaking other baseline surveys in areas of optimal habitat. This included during GCN, badger, otter and water vole, and breeding bird surveys, all of which incorporated areas of suitable reptile habitat.
Population Estimate
3.73 The reptile population size class was estimated using best practice guidance. Figures presented in Table 3.11 below are taken from Frog Life guidance18 and allow a classification of the relative size of reptile populations based on survey counts. The figures relate to the highest count of adult reptiles obtained by observation or under refugia on any single survey visit (‘maximum count’). Guidance recommends that population class size estimates are based on a minimum of 20 survey visits. However, given the low numbers of reptiles recorded, it was considered that completion of a further 13 survey visits would not have been beneficial in informing a population estimate and was therefore not considered appropriate.
Table 3.11: Reptile Population Class Sizes18
Species Low Population Good Population Exceptional Score 1 Score 2 Population Score 3
Adder <5 5-10 >10
Grass snake <5 5-10 >10
16 Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998) Evaluating Local Mitigation/Translocation Programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and Lawful Standards. HGBI Advisory Notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups. 17 Froglife (1998) The Planning System and Site Defence: how to Protect Reptile and Amphibian Habitats Froglife Advice Sheet 9. Froglife, Halesworth. 18 Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey: An Introduction to Planning, Conducting and Interpreting Surveys for Snake and Lizard Conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 20 July 2018
Species Low Population Good Population Exceptional Score 1 Score 2 Population Score 3
Lizard <5 5-20 >20
Slow worm <5 5-20 >20
3.74 Based on the population estimate, an assessment of whether the Site qualifies for the Key Reptile Sites Register, a mechanism of promoting the protection of key reptile sites across the UK. The assessment is carried out based on the following criteria (of which the Site must meet at least one) from relevant best practice guidance18:
• The Site supports three or more reptile species; • The Site supports two snake species; • The Site supports an exceptional population of one species; • The Site supports an assemblage of species scoring at least four; or • Does not satisfy the above but which is of particular regional importance given local rarity.
Limitations and Constraints
3.75 It is important to note that ecological surveys provide information regarding the ecological baseline of a site for only a ‘snapshot’ of time. Therefore, if significant time lapses between the surveys and the further development or implementation of proposals updated ecological surveys may be required to identify any change in the baseline, such as natural succession of habitats, or local extinction or colonisation of species. Ecological surveys can generally be considered as up to date for 2 to 3 years dependent on the nature of the site, ecological baseline and proposals and likely impact. Therefore if more than a year lapses between the progressions of development proposals, it is recommended that ecological advice is sought regarding the applicability of the survey findings.
3.76 As described above for each ecological receptor, baseline surveys of habitats and species were originally completed in 2016. This information was used to guide sensitive scheme design and any requirement for further survey updates. Importantly, additional targeted surveys were completed for bats, otter and badger in May-July 2018. This included a site walkover survey which confirmed that relevant site conditions identified by the 2016 surveys remained valid. As a result, the approach set out below was considered robust and accurate in informing this assessment
3.77 The initial survey visit was completed outside the optimal season for identification of plant species. As a result, grassland habitats, of which the appearance of can change markedly during the summer months, were subjected to updated surveys during completion of other baseline surveys during the summer months in 2016 and 2018 to ensure an accurate classification of habitat type.
Bats
3.78 The routes of the activity transects were changed and updated in light of health and safety concerns along publically accessible sections of the River Ash corridor, and also in response to emerging design options. Nevertheless, the main areas of development impact continued to be covered and the altered routes enabled more survey effort to be directed to areas of high bat activity. Therefore this is not considered a constraint to the survey findings.
3.79 During April 2016 static monitoring, a technical issue with the Anabat Express detectors resulted in corrupted data files. In addition, one of the detectors went missing from the Site in September, resulting in the loss of data from one of the four static monitoring points for that month. However, all other monthly static monitoring was carried out successfully, including the months of optimal bat activity. Therefore it is considered that sufficient static monitoring data was
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 21 July 2018
collected to give an overall picture of bat activity along the River Ash corridor and this is not considered to represent a constraint to the survey findings.
3.80 A further technical issue with the Anabat system resulted in the loss of some of the activity transect data for April 2016 and for one activity transect survey in July 2016. However, activity transect data was also recorded manually by surveyors, based on observations and heterodyne bat detectors. This dual method ensured sufficient data was collected for each transect, despite the technical issues with recording. In addition, the technical issue mainly affected Transect C which was located along the River Ash corridor which was subjected to additional survey by the static monitoring data collection. Furthermore, additional static activity data was collected along the River Ash corridor in 2018.
3.81 The data collected on the Anabats represents single bat call registrations. Registrations cannot be used to estimate the number of bat passes and it cannot always be ascertained if multiple passes in an evening represent multiple bats, or a single bat recorded repeatedly. Given the limitations to the data, caution is taken when reviewing the data and high numbers of bat passes are not automatically assumed to demonstrate use of a site by a large bat population.
3.82 The analysis of bat detector calls can be prone to subjectivity, but has been undertaken by experienced surveyors, following appropriate guidance and trained in bat call analysis. Bat species identification was interpreted using known call parametersError! Bookmark not efined. and existing literature on the ecology of UK bat species, including distribution, range, habitat associations and behavioural characteristics, in addition to professional judgement. Every attempt was made to identify bats to species level. However, it is not always possible to identify some Myotis, Pipistrellus and Nyctalus bats to species level. For example, differentiating between the echolocation calls of the common pipistrelle (which echolocates at a peak frequency of approximately 45kHz) and the soprano pipistrelle (which peaks at approximately 55kHz) is not always possible where recordings peak at the intermediate frequency of 50kHz. This is a widely accepted limitation and in such cases these passes are therefore classified at the Genus level only (i.e. Pipistrellus sp., Myotis sp., or Nyctalus sp.).
3.83 Particular care was taken when identifying members of the Myotis genus due to significant overlaps in their call parameters. These identifications should be considered as Myotis calls with the characteristics of the named species, based on comparison with a known call sequence from a bat flying in a similar situation, and should therefore be treated as highly likely, rather than definitive identifications.
3.84 SMP data collected in 2018 was recorded in full spectrum as this produces the best quality recordings. This was then converted to zero crossings for expedient analysis.
GCN Survey
3.85 eDNA samples can currently be obtained between the core period of 15 April and 30 June. Although samples taken outside this period can show presence such samples cannot be used to determine absence. Variations in weather patterns (for example unseasonably cold weather) can affect animal movements and it is possible that samples taken very early in the season may be inconclusive.
3.86 In certain situations eDNA survey results may not be conclusive. The presence of eDNA can be patchy and largely depends on location of animals within a pond. Sampling multiple parts of a pond increases the chance of successfully collecting eDNA. There is therefore a risk that the settlement pond, for which the accessibility was poor, with few available sampling points, did not allow sufficient samples to be taken to confidently conclude that GCN are not present. The eDNA survey returned a negative result for this waterbody. However given positive results for two ditches in the west of the Site (and within 500m of the settlement pond), it was decided to carry out a further 3 waterbody surveys of this pond, to provide suitable certainty in the survey findings.
3.87 Parts of the settlement pond were difficult to survey by bottle trapping and torching due to the steep banks and choppy water surface. As a result, surveys were discontinued after the third visit. This pond is part of an active working site, subject to regular disturbance and lacks the vegetation typically required to support GCN populations. Given the negative result of the eDNA testing and the extremely low suitability for GCN, this is not considered a constraint to the survey findings.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 22 July 2018
3.88 Bottle trapping was abandoned for ditch three after the first survey given extremely low water levels within the waterbody. However water levels within the ditch were checked throughout the remainder of the surveys. The ditch remained dry and therefore this is not considered a constraint to the survey findings.
3.89 Crucially, these waterbodies were surveyed at an early feasibility stage of scheme design. And therefore, the above constraints, when considered in light of their distance from the Site (>200m) are not considered to jeopardise the findings detailed in this report.
Otter Survey 3.90 Best practice guidance for otter surveys8&9 recommends a survey area of 200 m from the point of disturbance. The river to the east of Squires Bridge was not surveyed, due to the urban and private residential nature of riparian habitat and the negligible potential for development proposals to affect otter in this location.
3.91 Within the survey area, obstacles such as dense bramble and fallen trees obscured views of the river and prevented access to examine some features in more detail. Additionally, suitable habitat for otter including dense bramble scrub was difficult to survey. Whilst every effort was made to examine these areas of the river from a distance, otter are known to occur along the River Ash (as described below) and the presence of such densely vegetated and inaccessible areas are likely to be important in maintaining their presence along the waterway. This has been fully considered, and a precautionary approach adopted as part of the interpretation of findings and recommendations provided in this report.
Reptile Survey 3.92 The peak daytime temperatures during July 2016 often far exceeded temperatures at which reptiles are typically detectible. In accordance with survey guidance, high temperatures are sub- optimal for reptile surveys. However surveys were only undertaken during appropriate weather conditions, and at early times of the day when weather conditions were acceptable (for example early or late in the day when conditions were cooler), with survey visits well spread-out between May and August.
3.93 Furthermore, during the surveys, Areas B and C were subject to remediation landscaping and all vegetation and reptile refugia were removed. Four surveys had already been carried out in these areas with only one reptile recorded. Habitats in these areas were recently established and ephemeral in nature due to commitments to restore the soil workings to arable farmland. Therefore, whilst the habitats present were considered suitable for supporting reptiles, the likelihood of permanent populations being present was unlikely given the recent establishment of vegetation and extensive historic disturbance. Therefore this does not represent a constraint to survey findings.
3.94 Importantly the reptile surveys adopted a sampling approach which focused on optimal habitat areas both within the site and wider land. The scheme has been designed from the outset to retain and protected the River Ash corridor and associated woodland edge habitats, as a result, the survey findings are considered suitably robust in accurately informing reptile presence/absence and for informing necessary avoidance, mitigation and enhancement requirements in relation to reptiles.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 23 July 2018
4 Findings
4.1 The assessment findings upon which this assessment is based include those identified as part of the desk study, and those collected as part of field surveys. The findings of both components are detailed below.
Desk Study
4.2 The findings of the desk study are presented in the tables below. Table 4.1 summarises statutory Designated Sites within 5km of the Site, and non-statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Site. Table 4.2 summarises records of protected species within 2km of the Site.
4.3 In addition to the below, one area of ancient woodland (Round Copse) was identified within 2km of the Site, abutting the Site to the north-west.
Table 4.1 Desk Study – Designated Sites
Site Name Designation Qualifying Features Distance/ Orientation from Site (km)
Statutory Sites
South West Wetland of 828ha. The site comprises a series of reservoirs and 2km London International former gravel pits that support internationally south-west Waterbodies Importance important numbers of wintering waterfowl, Anas (Ramsar Site) strepera and Anas clypeata.
South West Special 825ha. The site comprises a series of reservoirs and 2km London Protection former gravel pits that support internationally south-west Waterbodies Area (SPA) important numbers of wintering waterfowl, Anas strepera and Anas clypeata.
Chertsey Local Nature 50ha. Chertsey Meads is an open floodplain 1.5km Meads Reserve (LNR) meadow on the banks of the River Thames. Over south 400 species of plants have been recorded, including flowers, grasses and sedges. 108 species of bird have been recorded. Some grass and herb species are very unusual for the habitat owing to calcium deposits from the Thames.
Dumsey Site of Special 9.6ha. Unimproved neutral grassland riverside 1.5km Meadow Scientific pasture in the floodplain of the River Thames. This south Interest species rich grassland is variable in character, with (SSSI) marshy depressions in places and dry ridges.
Thorpe Park SSSI 42ha. A former gravel pit now dominated by trees 2km No. 1 Gravel and shrubs, and in a stable ecological state. The south-west Pit site is important for wintering waterfowl, Anas strepera.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 24 July 2018
Site Name Designation Qualifying Features Distance/ Orientation from Site (km)
Thorpe hay SSSI A small meadow lying on the alluvial gravels of the 2.63km Meadows Thames Flood Plain surrounded by ditches and high north-west hedges and thought to be the last remaining example of a Thames valley hay meadow in Surrey. It contains a range of calcicole plants characteristic of this type of meadow.
Staines Moor SSSI The site comprises Staines Moor, a semi-natural 2.9km stretch of the River Colne which flows through it, north-west and three adjacent reservoirs. Staines Moor represents the largest area of alluvial meadows in Surrey and supports a rich flora while the reservoirs hold nationally important populations of wintering wildfowl. A pond at the site carries aquatic flora which is of national importance; including one plant which is extremely rare in Britain.
Knight and SSSI A site of national importance for wintering Shoveler 4.32km Bessborough Anas clypeata. east Reservoirs
Kempton SSSI The site consists of Kempton Park East Reservoir 5km Park and Red House Reservoir. A Site of national north-east Reservoirs importance for wintering Gadwall Anas strepera and also supports significant numbers of wintering Shoveler Anas clypeata.
Non-Statutory Sites
Queen Mary Site of nature Large body of open water with tightly grazed 0.06km Reservoir Conservation slopes, willow scrub and some planted trees of north Importance importance to wildfowl and visiting seabirds. It (SNCI) supports Gadwall Anas strepera and Shoveler Anas clypeata which are on the Conservation Concern list for Surrey. The site is of International Importance within the UK for Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus and of National Importance in Great Britain for Herring Gull Larus argentatus ssp. pontoppidan. The site is of National Importance in Great Britain for Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus.
West of SNCI Complex of lakes, scrub and grassland with ruderal 0.2km Queen Mary communities created by old gravel workings. north-west Reservoir Supports a wintering wildfowl assemblage of County importance including the Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius, Kingfisher Alcedo atthis, Water Rail Rallus aquaticus and Smew Margus albellus. Three plants recorded on the site Hound’s-tongue Cynoglossum officinale, Celery- leaved Buttercup, Ranunculus sceleratus and Water Dock Rumex hydrolapathum are included on the Surrey Rare Plant Register.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 25 July 2018
Site Name Designation Qualifying Features Distance/ Orientation from Site (km)
Littleton SNCI Large body of eutrophic waters, now a sailing club, 0.2km Lake and important wetland for both wintering and south summer breeding birds. The bird interest comes from over 100 species recorded at this site, and in the winter months up to 2000 wildfowl use the area.
Shepperton SNCI Two large bodies bordering the River Thames and 0.3km Quarry bisected by the M3 that are important for wintering south wildfowl.
River SNCI The Thames falls within the top 10% of UK 0.4km Thames waterways on the grounds of numbers of west macroinvertebrate species present. The fringing habitats provide a corridor for species migration and act as a buffer zone to protect the riverine environment. The Thames provides an important highway for migratory fish as well as an important corridor for migratory birds. The River Thames sites include the river (to the top of the bank) and semi- natural habitats associated with the towpath.
River Ash: SNCI River with good aquatic and marginal flora. 0.5km Splash Included in the area shown by Environment Agency south-east Meadow to to fall in the top 10% of UK watercourses due to its Gaston macroinvertebrate diversity. Bridge
Littleton SNCI Approximately 30 year old gravel working with 0.5km east Lake mature stands of willows and scrub around the lake (Shepperton with good marginal vegetation. The lake supports Green diverse marginal vegetation with Flat-stalked Reservoir) pondweed Potamogeton friesii. It has also been reported as a refuge for wintering wildfowl including Shoveler Anas clypeata and Gadwall Anas strepera.
Laleham SNCI Golf course with small areas of semi-improved and 0.6km Burway Golf unimproved grassland. Also includes western bank west Course of Chertsey Water Works. Includes two County rarities; Cerastium arvense & Torilis nodosa.
Sheepwalk SNCI Important wetland for both wintering and summer 0.6km lake breeding birds. Nearly 300 terrestrial and aquatic south-east species have been recorded including a County rarity and other notable species. The bird interest comes from over 100 species recorded at this site, and in the winter months up to 2000 wildfowl use the area.
River Ash: SNCI Short section of gently flowing river with overgrown 0.7km east Shepperton riverbank containing good marginal and aquatic Green vegetation. This stretch of river supports the BAP priority species, European Eel Anguilla Anguilla, and
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 26 July 2018
Site Name Designation Qualifying Features Distance/ Orientation from Site (km)
three Nationally Scarce plant species; Fringed Water-lily Nymphoides peltata, Intermediate Waterstarwort Callitriche hamulata & Yellow Water- lily Nuphar lutea.
Chertsey SNCI Semi-improved neutral grassland, pond and 0.9km Water Works emergent vegetation. south-west – Well Field
Penton Hook SNCI A large island in the River Thames. Contains a 1km Island diversity of good wetland habitats with several north-west notable species including Round Fruited Rush Juncus compressus, a county rarity.
River Ash, SNCI River with good aquatic and marginal flora and a 1km Splash recreation field with reclaimed gravel pit. Of the south-east Meadow notable species recorded within the site there was a County rarity. Included in the area shown by Environment Agency to fall in the top 10% of UK watercourses due to its macro invertebrate diversity.
Charlton SNCI Eutrophic lake with grass margins and numerous 1km Quarry willows, broadleaved tree species have been south-east planted. This wetland habitat has good bird diversity for wildfowl and Herons Ardea cinerea, Little Terns Sterna albifrons, Little Ringed Plovers Charadrius dubius and Little Egret Egretta garzetta.
Abbey Lake SNCI Open water and marginal vegetation. Supports 1.3km Complex wintering wildfowl and marginal vegetation adjacent south-west to St Ann’s lake SSSI. The area south of Abbey Lake is included for its interesting plant species including a Surrey rarity (Potentilla argentea) and for its position in the ecological unit adjacent to the SSSI.
Ashford SNCI Eutrophic lakes and surrounding vegetation of 1.5km Plant willows & other broadleaved trees, important for north-east wildfowl & wintering birds, particularly Shoveler Anas clypeata.
Chertsey SNCI Calcareous and improved grassland. De-notified 1.6km Meads SSSI, selected for species rich unimproved south grassland.
Desborough SNCI Large area of neutral, species rich grassland. 2km Island Bulbous Meadow-grass Poa bulbosa - Nationally south-east Scarce, and Alexanders Smyrnium olusatrum - scarce in Surrey previously recorded. Also important for position in ecological unit adjacent to River Thames SNCI and Ferris Meadows SNCI.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 27 July 2018
Site Name Designation Qualifying Features Distance/ Orientation from Site (km)
Ferris SNCI A lake created after gravel working now occupies 2km Meadows this site. Several grassland habitats now surround south-east the lake, including remnants of Thames alluvial grassland. Supports typical plants including Fringed Water Lily Nymphoides peltata, a County rarity. It also supports important numbers of wintering wildfowl and summer breeding birds.
Table 4.2 Desk Study Findings – Species Records
Species Name Location (Grid Legal Protection Reference)
Amphibians and Reptiles
Common frog Rana TQ1466 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (W&CA) temporaria Schedule 5
Common toad Bufo TQ0468 W&CA schedule 5 bufo Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
Grass snake Natrix TQ0468 W&CA Schedule 5 natrix Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
Smooth newt TQ0569 W&CA Schedule 5 Lissotriton vulgaris
Birds
Kingfisher TQ0467 W&CA Schedule 1
Red kite milvus milvus TQ0666 W&CA Schedule 1
Marsh Harrier Circus TQ0666 W&CA Schedule 1 aeruginosus
Hobby Falco subbuteo TQ0666 W&CA Schedule 1
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris TQ0666 W&CA Schedule 1
Redwing Turdus iliacus TQ0666 W&CA Schedule 1
Little ringed plover TQ0670 W&CA Schedule 1 Charadrius dubius
Green sandpiper Tringa TQ0670 W&CA Schedule 1 ochropus
Greenshank Tringa TQ0766 W&CA Schedule 1 nebularia
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 28 July 2018
Species Name Location (Grid Legal Protection Reference)
Plants
Bluebell Hyacynthoides TQ0669 W&CA Schedule 8 non-scripta
Summer snowflake TQ0566 Nationally scarce species
Brown galingale TQ0471 W&CA Schedule 8
Invertebrates
Stag beetle Lucanus TQ0466 W&CA 1981 (Schedule 5). Record from 1998. cervus UK Species of Principle Importance
White-letter hairstreak TQ0867 W&CA Schedule 5. Satyrium w-album
Mammals
European otter Lutra TQ0469 The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) lutra Regulations 2010 (EPS - Habitats Regs) W&CA Schedule 5 Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
Noctule bat Nyctalus TQ0566 EPS - Habitats Regs noctula W&CA Schedule 5 Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
Common pipistrelle TQ0566 EPS - Habitats Regs Pipistrellus pipistrellus W&CA Schedule 5
Soprano pipistrelle TQ0569 EPS - Habitats Regs Pipistrellus pygmaeus W&CA Schedule 5 Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
Serotine Eptesicus TQ0666 EPS - Habitats Regs serotinus W&CA Schedule 5
Daubenton’s bat Myotis TQ0666 EPS - Habitats Regs daubentonii W&CA Schedule 5
Nathusius’ pipistrelle TQ0666 EPS - Habitats Regs Pipistrellus nathusii W&CA Schedule 5
Brown long-eared bat TQ06 EPS - Habitats Regs Plecotus auritus W&CA Schedule 5
Water vole Arvicola TQ0668 W&CA Schedule 5
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 29 July 2018
Species Name Location (Grid Legal Protection Reference)
amphibius Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006)
West-European TQ0770 Species of Principal Importance (NERC Act 2006) hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
4.4 Habitat descriptions are set out below. While considering this information, reference should be made to the Phase 1 Habitat Map presented in Figure 1.1 in Appendix 3 and Target notes are presented in Appendix 4.
Site Description
4.5 The Site comprises a number of distinct areas with different habitat compositions: • Studios and car park. Areas of hardstanding and buildings, occasional scattered trees and ornamental planting.
• Backlot. Areas of ruderal, ephemeral and bare ground with high levels of recent disturbance and a generally low ecological value.
• River Ash corridor. A linear corridor of semi-natural broadleaved woodland along the River Ash. In general the river is heavily shaded by woodland canopy, but with occasional areas of tall ruderal and aquatic marginal vegetation where gaps in the canopy occur.
• Northwest grassland. Sheep grazed field in the northwest of the Site. • Queen Mary Reservoir. A large area of open water which borders the north of the Site.
Habitat Descriptions Semi-improved neutral grassland
4.6 Semi-improved neutral grassland to the west of the overflow car park in the northern backlot comprised a waist high dense sward dominated by cock’s-foot and false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, frequent species included yarrow Achillea millefolium, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata and tufted vetch Vicia cracca, occasional lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, goats beard Tragopogon pratensis, common sorrel Rumex acetosa, curled dock Rumex crispus, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis, field speedwell Veronica persica, hogweed Heracleum spondylium, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, a Geranium sp., a vetch Vicia sp., locally abundant species included a meadowgrass Poa sp. and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. The grassland supported a dense tussocky sward with extensive thatch and provided optimal habitat for reptiles and small mammals.
4.7 The grassland field in the north-west of the Site is subjected to relatively light levels of sheep grazing and comprised semi-improved neutral grassland with increased species diversity in places. The majority of the field, and in particular the central and southern part, was dominated by sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum with Yorkshire fog abundant but lower in sward and therefore did not prevent the ‘fine’ grassland appearance. Locally abundant species included soft brome Bromus erectus, meadow foxtail and doves-foot cranesbill Geranium molle. Abundant species included meadow buttercup, mouse ear chickweed Cerastium fontanum, frequent common sorrel, meadow vetching Lathyrus pratensis, curled dock, creeping thistle, and germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Occasional species included dandelion, ragwort Senecio vulgaris, field wood rush Luzula campestre. Locally abundant patches of short sward sedge occurred along the southernmost edge of field, representing patches of marshy grassland but below the minimal mappable unit area.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 30 July 2018
Improved grassland
4.8 Within the northern part of the northwest grassland field, the diversity of herbs and presence of fine grasses was greatly reduced and species indicative of improvement were abundant including creeping thistle, ragwort and perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne. Semi-natural broadleaved woodland
4.9 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland formed an extensive linear corridor along the River Ash in the centre of the Site. The woodland was dominated by mature oak Quercus robur, ash Fraxinus excelsior and sycamore Acer Pseudoplatanus and locally abundant horse chestnut Aesculus hipposcastanum. Crack willow was also an abundant feature of the canopy along the riparian zone where its habitat of dropping branches has created a dense tangle of vegetation along sections of the waterway. Alder Alnus glutinosa and poplar Populus sp. were also frequent along the edge of waterways. The understorey was dominated by bramble Rubus fruticosus, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, blackthorn Prunus spinosa and elder Sambucus nigra and also includes locally abundant yew Taxus baccata. Ivy Hedera helix was a constant feature throughout and cloaked many of the trees. Riparian sections also include abundant willow Salix sp. scrub.
4.10 Woodland at the northwest site periphery of Site supported a mature high canopy including abundant oak, ash, crack willow Salix fragilis and poplar Populus sp., and occasional aspen Populus tremula, and wild cherry Prunus avium, in addition to a dense understorey comprising abundant hawthorn, bramble and blackthorn.
4.11 The eastern boundary of the northwest grassland field supported linear woodland dominated by mature oak trees, with a dense understorey comprising abundant hawthorn, elder and blackthorn, frequent dog rose Rosa canina, holly Ilex aquifolium and bramble. Standing water
4.12 Standing water occurred outside the Site boundary in the form of a pond and several ditches. These features were surveys and reviewed because they had potential to support great crested newt. As a result, these features are discussed in more detail as part of the great crested newt surveys below. In summary, they included a mineral extraction settlement pond and three ephemeral wet ditches within arable fields to the southwest. Dryer sections of ditch supported dense linear bramble scrub and the northern third of the two northernmost ditches supported a line of dense willow scrub. The pond supported minimal aquatic or marginal vegetation. Running Water and Aquatic Marginal Vegetation
4.13 The River Ash flows eastwards through the centre of the Site where it is bordered by linear semi- natural broadleaved woodland. For the most part the watercourse is overshadowed in most sections by woodland canopy and scrub providing optimal habitat for species such as bats and otter. The riparian zone itself is relatively devoid of vegetation in most parts on account of eutrophic conditions associated with shading, siltation and a lack of water flow. Isolated clearings in the canopy had resulted in the establishment of patches of luxuriant aquatic marginal vegetation dominated by common reed Phragmites australis bulrush Typha latifolia, yellow flag Iris pseudacorus, and sedges Carex sp. with abundant gypsywort Lycopus europaeus and brooklime Veronica beccabunga.
4.14 The River Ash is well connected to a network of other rivers, lakes and reservoirs in the wider landscape offering opportunities for movement, foraging, shelter and dispersal by a variety of species. Buildings and Hardstanding
4.15 The film studios area comprises numerous large warehouses, areas of hardstanding and various buildings, all of which represent low ecological value. Several of the brick built buildings were likely to provide bat roost potential but the suitability is greatly reduced by extensive night lighting, high levels of disturbance, and a lack of vegetation suitable for foraging.
4.16 The Laleham nurseries area in the south of the Site also comprises a collection of barns and buildings with high bat roost potential. This area was largely surrounded by a screen of Leyland cypress Leyandii sp. and ornamental laurel hedging.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 31 July 2018
Bare ground
4.17 Large areas of bare ground were present in the south of the Site following the cessation of historic mineral extraction and reinstatement of consolidated ground. These supported little to no vegetation and were considered to be of negligible ecological value. An additional area of bare ground directly to the north of the studios is a permanent car park, which was under construction at the time of survey. Ephemeral and short perennial
4.18 A large area of ephemeral and short perennial vegetation was present in the south of the Site following the cessation of historic mineral extraction and reinstatement of consolidated ground. This area had been reseeded with an amenity grassland mix but prior to regular mowing and abundance of ephemeral short perennial vegetation had established as co-dominant in the sward.
Bats
Initial Bat Inspection Main Studio - Buildings
4.19 Descriptions of buildings considered to have bat roost potential are summarised in Table 4.3 below and the assessment of all buildings is shown in Figure 2.1, Appendix 3. Detailed descriptions of all buildings are provided in Appendix 5.
4.20 During the assessment of bat roost potential, a single bat was seen crawling underneath external fascia board on the uppermost southern elevation of Building 40, identifying this building as a confirmed bat roost.
4.21 No signs of use by bats were confirmed within other buildings during the internal inspections
Table 4.3: Assessment of Buildings with Bat Roost Potential
LUC Building Reference Building External Features Bat Roost Name/ Potential Description
B3 Mansion House Lifted roof tiles, raised and High missing hanging tiles, holes in walls, lifted lead flashing
B7 B223 Lifted and missing roof tiles, High gaps in brickwork and under lead flashing, hole under boiler flue, gap under ridge tiles
B17 B14 Cracks in the external High structure, lifted roofing felt and boarding.
B24 Korda Theatre Missing window, plant rooms High with slatted doors providing access points. All features are on the southern end of building.
B33 M Stage Gaps under ridge tiles, Low however no roof void so provide limited opportunities.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 32 July 2018
LUC Building Reference Building External Features Bat Roost Name/ Potential Description
B34 Admin Building Gaps under fascia, gaps in Low brickwork however external lighting reduces suitability.
B40 Theatre 1 A small bat species High (consistent with Pipistrellus sp. or Myotis sp.) was observed crawling in gap between brickwork and wooden fascia on southern elevation. Wooden vent providing access opportunity to interior. Gaps under bargeboards. All BRP features are on the southern end of the building.
B45 Wooden Sheds Gaps in wooden cladding, High to the south of missing windows, gaps the River Ash around door frames. corridor
Main studio – Trees
4.22 An inspection of trees within the main studio identified two mature trees with high bat roost potential (TR1) and a single large mature cedar with low bat roost potential (Tr2). Given the lack of firm proposals at the time of survey, trees within the wider Site were not assessed for their bat roosting potential. Refer to Figure 2.1, Appendix 3 for tree locations and Appendix 5 for target notes relating to trees. Laleham Nurseries – Buildings
4.23 The inspection findings are provided below. While considering this information, reference should be made to the Bat Roost Potential Map presented in Figure 2.6, Appendix 3 and target notes in Appendix 5.
4.24 The Laleham Nurseries site ite and immediately surrounding habitat is likely to be of low value for foraging and commuting bats, comprising relatively exposed areas of bare earth and ornamental planting unlikely to provide preferred foraging conditions. However, habitats within the wider area, including native hedgerows, treelines, and semi-natural broadleaved woodland along the River Ash corridor, located to the north of the Laleham Nurseries, are likely to provide important habitat features for bats locally.
4.25 The following buildings were identified as having high bat roost potential: • Building 2: A two-storey derelict barn clad with wooden panelling and a clay tiled roof. The building was in poor condition with features identified including badly fitted wooden panelling and tiles resulting in gaps; damage to the soffit board on the northern aspect and south-west corner of the building; and a gap between the window and lower pane on the southern aspect enabling access to the upper floor of the building. The internal inspection revealed a poorly sealed roof void with numerous gaps between the wooden panels at either gable end and between the tiles, as well as damage to the ceiling allowing access between the loft and the upper floor. Overall, there was moderate to low levels of cobwebbing and no signs of bat activity, such as droppings, identified. Adjoining the main building was a single storey outbuilding. The building was partially comprised of brick and wooden panelling with a corrugated metal roof. Features included damage and gaps in wooden panelling; and presence
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 33 July 2018
of dense ivy on the north-west corner of the building. No signs of bat activity, such as droppings, were identified.
• Building 4: A single storey derelict building comprised of a mixture of brick, breezeblocks and wooden panelling with a clay tiled roof. Adjoining the building was a single lean-to, which was comprised of brick and a bitumen roof. The building was in a poor condition with features identified including lifted and missing tiles; damaged roof on the south-west corner of the building; lifted and missing wooden panels; poorly fitted boarding across window on the western aspect and between the door frame and door on the eastern aspect; missing panelling above doorway on the eastern aspect; and missing bricks on northern aspect of building. An internal inspection revealed there to be no roof void or roof lining. The features identified above in the external inspection were also identified during the internal inspection. Overall, there was a low level of cobwebbing and no signs of bat activity identified.
• Building 6 (Shop): A two storey building previously used as a shop/barn. The building was comprised of wooden panelling and brick with a clay tiled roof. Part of the building that was used as a barn was noted to have an open, exposed side on the western aspect. Features identified included missing and lifted tiles; damaged roof on the southern pitch revealing a large hole above the roof void; gaps between wooden panelling; missing wooden panels on eastern aspect; window with missing glass pane on eastern aspect; and gap under ridge tile on northern gable end. An internal inspection identified a single roof void to the south of the building above the shop with gaps between the tiles and wooden panelling at both gable ends; a large hole in the roof; and damage to the polystyrene ceiling enabling access between the roof void and the upper floor. The rest of the building was a barn-like structure with no roof void that supported a number of gaps between tiles and wooden panelling. No signs of bat activity were identified.
• Building 14 (Pump house) was a small single storey brick building with corrugated metal roof that was heavily covered in ivy. No signs of bat activity were identified and this building was identified as having low bat roost potential given the presence of a single feature with bat roost potential which was considered to provide opportunities for singleton or low numbers of roosting bats only.
4.26 All remaining buildings (no’s. 1, 3, 5, 7-13) were considered to be of negligible suitability for bats, due to their tightly fitted construction, an absence of suitable roost features and/or their glass and metal construction materials which would be likely to result in unstable thermal conditions. River Ash – Trees
4.27 A targeted inspection of trees at two locations along the River Ash identified a small number of trees with high and low bat roost potential. These findings were used to inform exact locations of proposed road and footbridge. Refer to Figure 2.5, Appendix 3 for locations and Appendix 5 for target notes relating to trees.
Emergence/Re-entry Surveys
4.28 The location of roost surveys, and confirmed roosts are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.5, Appendix 3. Full bat roost survey results are provided in Appendix 5. In summary, low status day roosts of the following common bat species were recorded within buildings and trees within the Site: • Common pipistrelle; • Soprano pipistrelle; • Pipistrellus species; and • Brown long-eared bat.
Main Studio – Buildings
4.29 A total of four bat roosts were recorded in buildings at the main studios during the emergence/re- entry surveys. These comprised low status day roosts. Table 4.4 below summarises all building roosts recorded during the 2016 surveys.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 34 July 2018
Table 4.4: Main Studio - Building Roosts
Building Species Maximum Location and Roost Status Reference Number of Bats Description of Roost Observed Feature
B40 Soprano 1 Gap under bargeboards Day roost pipstrelle at southern gable end
B45 Brown long- 1 bat on two Gap under wooden Day roost eared bat separate nights cladding near the left window on the southern aspect
B45 Soprano 1 Open right window on Day roost pipstrelle the southern aspect which provides access to building/ roof cavity
B3 Common 1 bat on two Gap between the left Day roost pipistrelle separate nights window frame and wall on the southern aspect
Trees
4.30 One bat roost was recorded in a tree during the 2016 emergence/re-entry surveys. This was also a low status day roost. Details of this roost are provided in Table 4.5. It was confirmed that Tr1 would likely be retained and protected as part of any development proposals and so was not surveyed.
Table 4.5: Main Studio – Tree Roosts
Tree Species Maximum Location and Roost Status Number of Bats Description of Roost Reference Observed Feature
Tr2 Pipistrellus sp. 1 bat on two A small hole, located two Day roost separate nights thirds of the way up the (first sighting trunk, on a mature unconfirmed due London Plane Platanus x to lack of hispanica visibility).
Laleham Nurseries – Buildings
4.31 A number of roosts were recorded in buildings at Laleham Nurseries during the 2018 emergence/re-entry surveys. These comprised low status day roosts. Table 4.6 summarises all roosts recorded within the Laleham Nurseries during the 2018 surveys.
Table 4.6: Laleham Nurseries – Building Roosts
Building Species Maximum Location and Roost Status Reference Number of Bats Description of Roost Observed Feature
B2 Soprano 1 individual of Gap in soffit board on the Day roost pipistrelle, each species on northern and southern Common separate nights aspect, and a gaps under pipistrelle and panelling on the eastern
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 35 July 2018
Building Species Maximum Location and Roost Status Reference Number of Bats Description of Roost Observed Feature
Brown long- aspect. eared
B4 Soprano 2 bats on one Entered under wooden Day roost pipistrelles night plank at the gable end of the building on the southern aspect.
B6 Common 1 common Roosts were recorded Day roost Pipistrelle and pipistrelle and 2 under wooden fascia in Soprano soprano the south-east corner pipstrelle pipistrelles and western aspect of building.
B7 Soprano 1 bat on two Gap was recorded under Day roost pipistrelle separate nights the metal fascia on the northern aspect of the building.
Bat Activity Surveys
4.32 Full bat activity transect results are provided in Appendix 5. Bat activity is summarised for each transect below and in the below Tables. Transects A, B and F (Northwest grassland, Studios and Northern Backlot))
4.33 Transect A followed the tree-lines, woodland edge and margins of the northwest grassland and overflow car park adjacent to the Queen Mary Reservoir. Transect B was focussed on the studios area. These two transect routes were later combined into Transect F.
4.34 The following species were recorded: • Common pipistrelle; • Soprano pipistrelle; • Nathusius pipistrelle; • Noctule; • Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri; • Brown long-eared bat; and • Daubenton’s bat. 4.35 The surveys revealed moderate foraging and commuting activity within the northwest grassland section and the highest average number of bat registrations per transect. This was concentrated along the tree lines and woodland edge habitats, particularly those associated with the River Ash corridor. Activity levels were highest from August to October, with the lowest levels recorded in April and May.
4.36 Approximately half of the bat registrations within the northwest grassland consisted of common and soprano pipistrelles, with a few registrations from brown long-eared bats and Daubenton’s bat. This area also recorded the highest levels of Nyctalus species and Nathusius pipistrelle activity within the Site, the latter of which is often associated with large open water bodies such as the Queen Mary Reservoir which is nearby this location.
4.37 In contrast, bat activity within the studio area was very low with only a few registrations from noctules, Nathusius pipistrelles and other pipistrelle species. Most of this area was brightly illuminated throughout the night, with little or no vegetation to provide optimal foraging
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 36 July 2018
opportunities. Activity within the northern backlot was also very low, with the exception of the western tree-line which forms the eastern border of the northwest grassland where bat activity was consistent with that area, as described above.
Table 4.7: Summary of Anabat Registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect A, B and F) Common pipistrelle Sporano pipistrelle Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp. Noctule bat Leisler’s Nyctalus sp. Brownlong bat Daubenton’s Date Transect Total Registrations
-
eared bat
18th April A Data lost. Written reports indicate moderate foraging and commuting activity from common pipistrelles and soprano pipistrelles.
18th April B 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
9th May F 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 16
29th June A Discounted due to weather conditions during survey. Commuting passes from common pipistrelles, a soprano pipistrelle and a noctule.
11th July F 9 2 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 24
2nd August -dusk F 36 10 0 1 50 0 12 1 2 112
3rd August -dawn F 0 8 0 0 23 0 4 0 0 35
15th September F 34 12 12 0 6 0 3 3 0 70
4th October F 8 21 15 8 0 8 16 0 0 76
Total Registrations per 91 59 31 12 95 8 35 4 2 337 Species
Transects C and E - River Ash Corridor, Backlots and Arable Farmland Adjacent to Site
4.38 A summary of bat data recorded for Transects C and E is shown in Table 4.8. Transects C and E focussed on bat activity associated with the River Ash corridor, and the northern edge of the south backlots and arable field adjacent to the west of the Site. From August onwards, surveys were carried out only along Transect E, due to health and safety concerns relating to anti-social behaviour within publicly accessible areas.
4.39 The following species were recorded within Transects C and E: • Common pipistrelle; • Soprano pipistrelle; • Nathusius pipistrelle; • Noctule; • Nyctalus species; • Serotine; • Brown long-eared bat; and • Daubenton’s bat.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 37 July 2018
4.40 Moderate levels of foraging and commuting activity were recorded along Transect E and this was strongly associated with the River Ash corridor. Bat activity within the open areas of the adjacent arable farmland was limited to very occasional registrations and commuting passes only. Activity levels were highest in August and October.
4.41 The majority of registrations were that of common and soprano pipistrelles, with noctules also recorded frequently. Very occasional registrations of commuting bats were recorded from Nathusius pipistrelles, brown long-eared bats and Daubenton’s bat. Additionally, one serotine bat was recorded foraging at the western end of the Site in October.
4.42 Due to a technical fault, some Anabat data for Transect C was lost, however, written observations using a hand held detector were also completed and this indicated moderate to high levels of foraging activity from common and soprano pipistrelles and noctules. Bat activity on this transect was highest over the river and associated waterbodies.
Table 4.8: Summary of Anabat registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect C and E) Date Transect Common pipistrelle Sporano pipistrelle pipistrelle Nathusius Pipistrellus Noctule Serotine Nyctalus bt Brownlong bat Daubenton’s Total
sp.
- sp.
eared
18th April C Data lost. Written reports indicate moderate to high foraging and commuting activity of common and soprano pipistrelles.
9th May E 15 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 19
16 May C 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
29th June C Survey abandoned due to weather conditions. Some foraging activity recorded from soprano pipistrelles and a noctule.
30th June E 18 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 24
11th July C Data lost. Written reports indicate semi-continuous foraging activity of common and soprano pipistrelles and noctules.
2nd August -dusk E 24 32 1 0 47 10 2 0 0 116
3rd August -dawn E 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
15th September E 7 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 22
4th October E 35 50 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 97
Total Passes per Species 88 104 9 2 53 10 2 4 1 273
Transect D - Southern Backlot and Arable Farmland to West of Site
4.43 A summary of bat data recorded for Transect D is shown in Table 4.9. Transect D focussed on linear features, such as tree lines, banks and field margins, along the boundaries of the southern backlot and the adjacent arable farmland to the west of the Site.
4.44 The following species were recorded: • Common pipistrelle;
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 38 July 2018
• Soprano pipistrelle; • Leisler’s bat; • Nyctalus species; and • Brown long-eared bat. 4.45 Activity levels along this transect were low, with the majority of activity consisting of commuting passes from common and soprano pipistrelles. One brown long-eared commuting pass and two Leislers’ bat commuting passes were also recorded.
4.46 Given the low levels of activity, along with extremely low habitat suitability for foraging and commuting bats, further activity surveys of this transect were not conducted.
Table 4.9: Summary of Anabat Registrations per Survey, 2016 (Transect D) Date Transect Commo Sporano pipistrelle Pipistrellus bat Leisler’s Nyctalus bt Brownlong Total
n pipistrellen
sp.
- sp.
eared
9th May D 5 11 0 2 1 0 19
30th June D 8 8 2 0 0 1 19
Total Passes per Species 13 19 2 2 1 1 38
4.47 A summary of the total bat registrations for activity transects in 2016 is provided in Table 4.10 below.
Table 4.10: Summary of Transect Anabat Registrations per Survey Night (All species), 2016
Date Total Registrations per Transect
A B C D E F
Average Number of Bat Registrations per Survey * 4 22 19 48.7 55.5 Night
Total Species Confirmed 3 3 3 4 7 7
* No data recorded (see Table 3.5).
Static Monitoring Surveys
4.48 Anabat static monitoring locations undertaken in 2016 are shown in Figure 2.3, Appendix 3 and full Anabat survey data is provided in Appendix 5. Static monitoring data recorded at each location are described below and summarised in Table 4.11. In general, high levels of bat activity were recorded at all of the static monitoring point locations. SMP 1
4.49 This monitoring point was located close to the backlot access bridge over the River Ash, on a tree facing the water. The area is adjacent to the studios where the river corridor is subject to some low levels of light spill. Bat activity was high, with an average of 209 bat registrations per night, though this was much lower than at SMP2 and SMP3 located upstream to the west. Activity was highest in August and lowest in June, however, it should be noted that some data for May and
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 39 July 2018
September was lost due to technical issues and removal of the detector by a member of the public, respectively.
4.50 A minimum of 6 species were recorded with over 81% of registrations identified as soprano pipistrelle and 12% as common pipistrelle. Activity levels for other species were low. Activity started between 0 and 30 minutes after sunset, with soprano pipistrelles always the first species recorded. These activity patterns are likely to indicate the presence of soprano pipistrelle roosts in the vicinity. SMP2
4.51 SMP2 was located within the River Ash corridor, on a tree facing the river, towards the west of the studios. This detector recorded an average of 304 bat passes per night, which was the second highest of all the static monitoring points. Activity was highest in August and lowest in June.
4.52 The high levels of activity were mainly due to soprano pipistrelles, which were most active at this static monitoring point, representing over 76% of registrations. Common pipistrelle activity comprised 20% of registrations, though this was lower than at SMP3 and SMP4. Other species, including Daubenton’s bat, Nathusius pipistrelle and noctule were also recorded in relatively low numbers. Activity generally started between 5 and 20 minutes after sunset, with soprano pipistrelles always the first species recorded. This again may indicate the nearby presence of soprano pipistrelle roosts. SMP3
4.53 This detector was attached to a mature tree within the woodland strip, along the wet ditch and eastern field boundary of the northwest grassland. The highest levels of activity were recorded here, with an average of 312 bat passes per night. Activity was highest in May and lowest in June, July and October. Activity generally began between 15 and 35 minutes after sunset, with soprano pipistrelles and noctules as the first species recorded.
4.54 This monitoring point had some of the highest levels of species diversity with at least 9 species of bat recorded, and this may reflect the proximity of high quality open grassland habitat in addition to woodlands. Over 48% of all bat registrations were that of common pipistrelles, with soprano and Nathusius pipistrelles comprising over 22% and 19% of registrations respectively. This static monitoring point recorded the highest numbers of passes for common pipistrelle, Nathusius pipistrelle, identified noctule passes and Myotis bat species. Soprano pipistrelle activity, whilst still high, was considerably lower than at SMP1 and SMP2 and his may reflect the increased distance from a water source. SMP4
4.55 This monitoring point was located on a tree within the woodland located along the western edge of the northwest grassland. The average number of bat passes per night was lowest at this location (172), however, species diversity was among the highest. Bat activity was highest in May, lowest in July and generally began between 20 and 45 minutes after sunset. The first species recorded varied from night to night from soprano pipistrelles, common pipistrelles, Nathusius pipistrelles, noctules and Leisler’s bat.
4.56 At least 9 species of bat were recorded at this location. Over 58% of all bat passes were that of common pipistrelles, in contrast to much lower levels of soprano pipistrelle activity compared to the other static monitoring locations (approximately 20%). This location recorded the highest overall levels of Nyctalus sp. activity (noctule, Leisler’s and unidentified Nyctalus calls combined) and also relatively high levels of Nathusius pipistrelle activity (6% and 9% of bat passes respectively).
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 40 July 2018
Table 4.11: Summary of Anabat Registrations by SMP Location 2016 SMPLocation Common Pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus Pipistrelle social call Noctule bat Leisler’s Nyctauis Serotine Brownlong Myotis bat Daubenton’s and/ or Alcathoe* Brandt’s bat/ Whiskered Passes Total Average Passes per Night** Total Species Confirmed sp. sp.
sp. sp.
-e sp.
ared bat
1 702 4926 77 73 210 0 0 1 0 2 30 35 0 6056 209 6
2 2372 9106 80 6 51 77 2 2 1 17 33 125 0 11872 304 8
3 6024 2745 2404 80 637 284 26 53 1 10 87 115 8 12474 312 9
4 4020 1385 635 113 261 185 70 153 1 13 9 18 1 6864 172 9
Total Passes 13118 18162 3196 272 1159 546 98 209 3 42 159 293 9 37275
* Due to widely accepted limitations in distinguishing these three species by echolocation calls alone, these species are grouped together. ** Taking into account differences in number of survey nights due to lost data for SMP 1.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 41 July 2018
Static Monitoring Surveys – Targeted Location for Bridges
4.57 Anabat static monitoring locations of surveys undertaken in 2018 are shown in Figure 2.5, Appendix 3 and full Anabat survey data is provided in Appendix 5. Static monitoring data recorded at each location are described below and summarised in Table 4.12. High levels of bat activitywas recorded at SMP1 whilst there were considerably lower levels of bat at activity at SMP2. SMP1
4.58 This monitoring point was located in an area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland on an island surrounded by the River Ash in the west of the Site. The average number of bat passes per night was highest at this location compared to SMP2 in 2018. Bat activity was particularly high in June with soprano pipistrelle being the most commonly recorded species. Species recorded included soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s bat, brown long-eared and Myotis. SMP2
4.59 This monitoring point was located in an area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland adjacent to the River Ash in the south of the Site. The average number of passes per night was relatively low at this location with the highest number of registrations recorded in July. Similarly to SMP1 in 2018, the most commonly recorded bat was soprano pipistrelle. Other species recorded included common pipistrelles, Nathusius pipistrelle, noctule, serotine, brown long-eared and Myotis sp.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 42 July 2018
Table 4.12: Summary of Anabat Registrations by SMP Location 2018 SMPLocation Common Pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus Pipistrelle socia Noctule bat Leisler’s Nyctauis Serotine Brownlong Myotis bat Daubenton’s and/ or Alcathoe* Brandt’s bat/ Whiskered Passes Total Average Passes per Night Total Species Confirmed sp. sp.
sp. sp.
- sp.
eared bat
l call l
1 61 1065 0 44 0 63 2 3 0 22 32 0 0 1292 129 8
2 13 210 1 37 0 32 0 6 1 2 10 0 0 312 31 9
Total Passes 74 1275 1 81 0 95 2 9 1 24 34 0 0 1604
* Due to widely accepted limitations in distinguishing these three species by echolocation calls alone, these species are grouped together.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 43 July 2018
Great Crested Newt
Desk Study
4.60 In summary, the desk study recorded the presence of the following species of amphibians and reptiles within 2km of the Site:
• Common frog Rana temporaria; • Common toad Bufo bufo; • Grass snake Natrix natrix; • Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris; and • European pond terrapin Emys orbicularis (non-native invasive);
Field Survey
4.61 GCN field survey findings are summarised in Figure 3.1 in Appendix 3 and detailed below. Terrestrial Habitat Assessment 4.62 Rough grassland, scrub, woodland and tall ruderal habitats found within the Site provided optimum terrestrial habitat for GCN. In addition, the damp, sheltered conditions provided by dense scrub and woodland habitats included features such as log piles, fallen dead wood, brash piles, cracks and crevices in the ground, and mammal burrows for shelter and overwintering opportunities. Nevertheless, the likelihood of these habitats being important for supporting GCN in their terrestrial phase is reduced by the distance from waterbodies, with the closest waterbody with potential to support GCN being located within arable habitat c.200m to the west.
eDNA Survey
4.63 The eDNA results confirmed the presence of GCN DNA in ditches 1 and 2, located 520m and 380m from the western site boundary respectively). The results for ditch 3 and the settlement pond were negative (i.e. no GCN DNA was found within the sample). However, given the proximity of ditch three and the settlement pond to the other waterbodies, full surveys were carried out for each of the waterbodies. Waterbody Survey
4.64 No GCN were recorded in any of the waterbodies during the surveys. Low numbers of smooth newt were recorded. The water levels within field ditches reduced significantly during the survey season and given their ephemeral nature, relatively recent creation and historic disturbance, these ditches are considered likely to support transitory GCN only. The full survey data is included in Appendix 6.
Otter and water Vole
Desk Study
4.65 A review of biological records included records of otter from the River Thames in proximity to Chertsey and Weybridge, approximately 1.5km to the south of the Site.
Field Surveys
4.66 Otter and water vole survey findings are summarised in Figure 4.1 in Appendix 3 and detailed below. Habitat Assessment
4.67 The River Ash corridor provides highly suitable otter habitat, including a network of complex waterways enclosed within dense woodland and scrub habitats. The corridor is well connected with suitable habitat to the northwest and southeast along the River Ash, and ditches and smaller
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 45 August 2018 watercourses within wider landscape provide continuous habitat connectivity with extensive areas of suitable habitat locally, including the River Thames to the south and the Colne Valley to the northwest. Dense scrub and tall ruderal habitat located in areas where public access is restricted are likely to provide opportunities for sheltering.
4.68 The Site is also likely to provide suitable foraging habitat, supporting potential food sources ranging from birds to fish. However, the value of the habitat as a foraging resource is likely to be limited to some extent by the lack of habitat diversity along this stretch of the River Ash. For example, much of the watercourse lacks diversity, comprising heavily silted and shaded eutrophic conditions, and lacking in-channel habitat niches. As such the abundance and diversity of prey items such as fish are likely to be limited. Field Survey
4.69 During the original survey in 2016, a collection of several old spraints was recorded beneath the footbridge which connects the main studio to the backlots. Similar findings were recorded as part of the updated survey in 2018, including recent spraint.
4.70 A large recent spraint was recorded during the 2016 GCN surveys, located at the edge of the balancing pond approximately 400m to the west of the Site. The spraint was positioned along an overflow ditch which drained underneath the Shepperton road into fields to the south.
4.71 The River Ash splits in several locations and provides inaccessible areas likely to be of increased suitability for providing otter shelters due to low levels of disturbance.
4.72 The survey identify several habitat features likely to provide potential opportunities for otter shelters, including dense scrub located on islands, collections of brash, and several derelict manmade structures such as bridges in various stages of dereliction which did or may provide subterranean cavities.
4.73 A large cavity located underneath an historic collapsed structure, located approximately 30m upstream of the footbridge and camera trap, was considered particularly suitable for providing opportunities for otter sheltering, consisting of a large cave like opening with a metal grill preventing direct access by humans. This feature was located away from accessible footpaths and was obscured by dense bramble, with direct access to the River Ash. A search of this feature using a torch did not identify any mammal field signs except for abundant fox scats.
4.74 Although many suitable potential habitat features for resting were identified within the survey area, no confirmed otter shelters were identified. It is likely that features suitable for providing otter shelters were present in areas which could not be surveyed, particularly within dense scrub where disturbance levels are low. Consequently a precautionary approach has been adopted in interpreting survey findings.
4.75 A summary of otter field survey results in provide in Table 4.13 below.
Table 4.13 Otter Survey Results
Grid Reference Feature
TQ066684 Several old otter spraints on southern ledge under bridge in 2016 and fresh spraint recorded in 2018.
TQ057684 Otter spraint (2016) – large and fresh located at southern edge of offsite active mineral extraction site and balancing pond where overflow ditch flows south beneath Shepperton Road.
TQ066684 Large cavity under collapsed structure with potential to provide shelter. Consisted of a large cave like opening with a metal grill preventing direct access by humans. Obscured by dense bramble, with direct access to the River Ash. No otter signs present. Abundant fox scats recorded.
TQ063688 Old spraint in ley of overhang adjacent to backwater of River Ash. Close to footpath. 2016.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 46 August 2018
Remote Camera Trap Survey
4.76 No otters were recorded by the Camera Trap. Species recorded included fox, brown rat, mouse species, grey heron, grey wagtail, coot, mallard, robin and domestic dogs.
Breeding Birds
Desk Study
4.77 A summary of the records of notable birds within 2km of the Site is summarised in Table 4.14, below.
Table 4.14: Summary of notable bird records (species of conservation concern) within 2km
Species Grid Date Last Status Reference Recorded (1km)
Kingfisher Alcedo atthis TQ0467 2009 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber
Red kite milvus milvus TQ0666 2009 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber
Marsh Harrier Circus TQ0666 2009 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber aeruginosus
Hobby Falco subbuteo TQ0666 1996 W&CA Schedule 1
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris TQ0666 1995 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Red
Redwing Turdus iliacus TQ0666 1995 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Red
Great Northern diver Gavia TQ0667 2007 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber immer
Little ringed plover Charadrius TQ0670 1996 W&CA Schedule 1 dubius
Green sandpiper Tringa TQ0670 1994 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber ochropus
Slavonian grebe podiceps TQ0766 1992 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber auritus
Greenshank Tringa nebularia TQ0766 1992 W&CA Schedule 1
Black-necked grebe Podiceps TQ0368 1998 W&CA Schedule 1, BoCC Amber nigricollis
Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea TQ0469 1994 W&CA, BoCC Amber
Dunnock Prunella modularis TQ0469 1994 W&CA, BoCC Amber
Yellowhammer Emberiza TQ0567 1985 W&CA, BoCC Red citrinella
Reed bunting Emberiza TQ0567 1985 W&CA, BoCC Red
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 47 August 2018 Species Grid Date Last Status Reference Recorded (1km)
schoeniclus
Lesser spotted woodpecker TQ0666 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red Dendrocopus minor
Yellow wagtail Motacilla flava TQ0666 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red
Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis TQ0666 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red
Spotted flycatcher TQ0666 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red
Swallow Hirundo rustica T0469 1994 W&CA, BoCC Amber
House martin Delichon urbicum T0469 1994 W&CA, BoCC Amber
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus T0567 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red
Herring gull Larus argentatus T0567 1995 W&CA, BoCC Red subsp. Argentatus
Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula T0666 1995 W&CA, BoCC Amber
Field Survey
4.78 Species of conservation concern recorded within the survey area are shown in Table 4.15 below. The location of notable birds and distribution of all bird records are shown in Figures 5.1- 5.29 in Appendix 3.
Table 4.15: Species of Conservation Concern Breeding Territories
Species Status Minimum no. Comments on Breeding territories distribution population Sch BoCC BoCC S41 estimate (no. of pairs) Score 1 Red Am NERC
Black- Not breeding NA NA headed Gull on-site Chroicocep halus ridibundus
Bullfinch 3 River Ash 0 Pyrrhula corridor (2) pyrrhula and woodland at northwest edge of site (1)
Dunnock 16 Scrub and 0 Prunella woodland edge modularis throughout site
Grey 2 River Ash 1 Wagtail corridor Motacilla pedestrian
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 48 August 2018 Species Status Minimum no. Comments on Breeding territories distribution population cinerea footbridge (1),
River Ash corridor and wet depressions within arable (1)
Greylag Not breeding Feeding only NA Goose on-site Anser anser
Hobby Not breeding Direct flight NA on-site out of woodand to west of site heading east
House Not confirmed Foarging high NA Martin breeding on- over SE of site Delichon site urbicum
House 2 (colonies) Northwest 0 Sparrow edge of Studios (1) and South- west edge of arable farmland to west (1)
Kestrel 1 Suitable 1 Falco grassland/woo tinnunculus dland habitat throughout
Kingfisher 1 River Ash 2 corridor
Lapwing 6 Flooded 0 ephemeral/dist urbed ground adjacent to SW of site and arable land
Lesser- 1 River Ash 3 spotted corridor Woodpecke r Dendrocopo s minor
Little ringed 1 Ephemeral/dist 2 plover urbed ground adjacent to SW
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 49 August 2018 Species Status Minimum no. Comments on Breeding territories distribution population of site and
arable land
Linnet 4 (colonies) Scrub in south, 0 Linaria centre and cannabina southwest of site
Mallard 5 River Ash 0 Anas corridor and platyrhynch ephemeral os waterbodies (ponds and puddles)
Meadow 2 Edges of arable 0 Pipit Anthus fields to west pratensis of site
Mistle 3 Woodland 0 Thrush edges of River Turdus Ash Corridor viscivorus and northwest grassland field
Mute Swan 1 River Ash 0 Cygnus corridor color
Red Kite Not breeding Passing over NA site Milvus milvus
Reed 1 Balancing 0 Bunting pond, ditch Emberiza and wet schoeniclus ground (emergent vegetation) to SW of site.
Shelduck Not breeding Associated NA Tadorna on-site with Queen tadorna Mary Reservoir to north
Skylark 8 Arable fields to 0 Alauda SW arvensis
Song 17 Woodland, tree 0 Thrush lines and scrub Turdus habitat philomelos throughout site
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 50 August 2018 Species Status Minimum no. Comments on Breeding territories distribution population Spotted 3 Linear 2 Flycatcher woodland to Muscicapa east of striata northwest grassland field (1) and woodland adjacent to western site boundary (2)
Starling 1 Colony River Ash 0 corridor and housing estate.
Stock Dove 8 River Ash 0 Columba corridor (5) oenas and woodland and mature tree lines along west and south site periphery.
Swift Apus Not breeding Foraging high NA apus on-site over site
Tawny Owl 1 River Ash 2 Strix aluco corridor
Other non-notable species included for breeding population score
Buzzard 1 River Ash 1 corridor
Green 1 River Ash 1 woodpecker corridor and northwest grassland
Grey heron 1 River Ash 2 corridor
Sand 1 Colony (20+ Active quarry 1 martin nests) workings at SW edge of site
Sparrow 1 River Ash 1 hawk corridor
TOTAL ------18
4.79 A total of 69 bird species were recorded within the study area. Of these, at least 61 species were considered to be breeding. The remaining eight species were considered to include the survey area within their feeding territories but to nest outside. A summary of the bird communities of
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 51 August 2018 each of the key habitat areas within the Site is provided below. The distribution of all bird records and those of notable status is shown in Figures 5.1 – 5.29 in Appendix 2.
4.80 A summary of the bird survey findings for each of the distinct areas included in the survey, is provided below. River Ash Corridor
4.81 The River Ash corridor supported the greatest number and diversity of bird species within the survey area. This area was primarily comprised of woodland and scrub, and also supported riparian habitat associated with the river. The range of habitat niches present was therefore reflected by the diversity of bird species recorded. Birds of conservation concern recorded breeding or possibly breeding within this area included starling, stock dove, tawny owl, bullfinch, dunnock, song and mistle thrush, lesser spotted woodpecker and grey wagtail. In addition, kingfisher, a Schedule 1 species, was recorded displaying territorial along the river and is likely to be breeding within or close to the Site. Northwest Grassland
4.82 The breeding bird interest of this area was focused primarily on peripheral woodland and scrub habitats located at the edge of the field where notable species included spotted flycatcher, bullfinch, stock dove, dunnock, song and mistle thrush. Of particular note was the presence of several starling nests recorded in mature trees around the edge of the field. No notable species were recorded nesting within the semi-improved neutral grassland despite its apparent suitability for ground nesting species. It did however provide a feeding resource for starlings and green woodpecker. Arable and Minerals Extraction Land
4.83 The bird diversity within this area, located to the west of the Site, was low. However, many of the species recorded were notable species including those listed on Schedule 1 and/or Birds of Conservation Concern. The arable farmland habitat in the west of this area supported eight pairs of Skylark, three pairs of lapwing and two pairs of meadow pipit but did not support any other bird species of note.
4.84 Recently disturbed and ephemeral ground created in the location of previous minerals workings supported a further three pairs of lapwing, and also supported a single pair of the schedule 1 species little ringed plover. Emergent vegetation which had established in a waterlogged area and an associated ditch in the south supported nesting reed bunting.
4.85 Scrub habitat in the north, along the alignment of a gas pipeline and electrical pylons, immediately to the west of the Site, supported at least four linnet colonies. A house sparrow colony was recorded at least partly extending into the southwest corner of the arable fields.
4.86 An active quarry in the south of the Site, to the southeast of the Laleham Nurseries, supported a sand martin colony during the surveys in 2016. At least 20 nest holes were in use during the breeding season. However, following completion of nesting, this area was reinstated to level ground and the disused nests removed.
4.87 Woodland and mature trees at the norther and western edge of the arable farmland supported several notable species including at least four stock dove, two mistle thrush, and 11 song thrush territories. In addition, a spotted flycatcher territory was recorded from with mature oak woodland at the western edge of the arable fields.
4.88 Finally, a kestrel was seen on two separate occasions hunting over rough grassland along the southern edge of the arable and minerals site, and also along a ditch running north-south within the arable fields. No evidence of on-site nesting was observed, but this species is likely to nest locally. Studios (main)
4.89 This area was, on the whole, considered of negligible value for breeding birds on account of the lack of vegetation and urbanised nature. The exception was a colony of house sparrow which was recorded nesting at the north edge of the Studios. Several house sparrows were seen perched and singing from the uppermost section of a large warehouse building overlooking the overflow
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 52 August 2018 car park in the northern field. These birds were also seen flying between the warehouse and dense bramble scrub along the southwest edge of the field.
4.90 The Studios area comprised numerous large warehouse buildings which provided potential nesting opportunities for gull species. Lesser black-backed gull and herring gull occur at the adjacent Queen Mary Reservoir at internationally and nationally important numbers respectively. Nevertheless, no gull species were recorded on roof tops or displaying nesting behaviour in the vicinity, despite vantage point inspections undertaken from elevated sections of the reservoir embankment. Studios Backlot
4.91 The Backlot to the south of the River Ash is largely unsuitable for bird species, comprising regularly disturbed ground used as an active film set during the surveys. Overflow car park
4.92 The North Backlot is largely comprised of a ‘floating’ car park located on short mown grassland, and an adjacent permanent car park which was under construction at the time of survey. Both of which, are of negligible value for nesting birds. The western part of the North Backlot supports tussocky grassland which, whilst of ecological value and likely to represent an important foraging resource for birds, did not support any nesting. Woodland and scrub habitats along the north, south and western edge of this area provided optimal bird nesting habitat and supported nesting house sparrow (see above description for ‘Studios (main)’, dunnock, starling and spotted flycatcher.
Badger
Desk Study
4.93 The desk study did not identify any records of badger within 2km of the Site.
Field Survey
Habitat Assessment 4.94 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in April 2016, the Site was considered to provide optimal habitat conditions for badger. The woodland and scrub habitats throughout the Site provided optimum conditions for badger to establish setts, particularly the banks and root systems within woodland surrounding the Site. Large areas of open grassland, arable land and woodland both within and adjacent to the Site provided optimum foraging opportunities for badger, whilst the Site was connected to further suitable habitat within the wider landscape via a network of fields, woodlands and hedgerows.
Badger Survey
4.95 No badger setts or evidence of badger activity were recorded during any of the surveys, other than one incidental sighting in May of a roaming adult along the woodland edge of the northwest grassland, at dusk. It can therefore be concluded that the Site does not support badger setts but is likely to represent an occasional foraging resource for a badger population located in the wider area. Mammal paths consistent with badger were noted at the edge of woodland in the northwest of the Site, in the location where the badger was sighted. Therefore, it is considered likely that badger setts may be located within woodland habitats to the northwest of the Site boundary.
Reptiles
Habitat Assessment 4.96 The majority of the Site, including the backlots, and the studios are entirely unsuitable for supporting reptiles due to an absence of suitable habitat type and structure. In addition, the
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 53 August 2018 grazed northwest grassland was of low suitability due to regular grazing and mowing which has prevented a thatched sward developing.
4.97 Suitable reptile habitat was largely limited to peripheral areas of the Site and the edges of the River Ash corridor. Those areas considered most likely to support reptiles were surveyed, including areas located outside of the Site boundary. Survey areas and locations of refugia are shown in Figure 6.1 in Appendix 3, and included the following habitat types:
• Long, tussocky grassland (including wet/marshy grassland); and • Ruderal/scrub communities. 4.98 In these areas, grassland was mown infrequently, resulting in a relatively long sward length that provided a varied structure suitable for reptiles. Wetter areas of grassland and tall ruderal habitat in the south of the Site were particularly suitable for grass snake, which favour such areas for foraging.
4.99 Woodland and hedgerows provided opportunities for reptile species to hibernate and shelter, with brash/deadwood piles, cracks and crevices and mammal burrows present.
4.100 Habitats through the Site, and in particular the River Ash corridor, were ecologically connected to further areas of suitable reptile habitat within the wider landscape including woodland and pastoral land. This provided opportunities for dispersal to and from wider populations.
Survey
4.101 Results for the reptile refugia checks are summarised in Table 4.16, below. These show the maximum numbers of adult animals found in each area during any one survey, with the maximum number of juveniles recorded during any one survey is shown in parentheses within the table for information. A summary of the reptile survey findings is shown in Figure 6.1, Appendix 3 and raw data is included in Appendix 7).
Table 4.16: Summary of 2016 Reptile Survey.
Area Slow Worm Common Grass snake Adder Lizard
A 0 0 1 (1) 0
B 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 (1) 0
Total Across 0 0 1 (2) 0 Site
Note: Figures show maximum adult count with juvenile count in parentheses
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 54 August 2018 5 Discussion
Designated Sites
5.1 An assessment of the potential for the scheme to effect designated sites is provide below, together with avoidance and mitigation safeguards which will be provided if required.
5.2 Only those sites with the potential to be affected by the proposal have been included. This includes sites which share functional ecological connectivity with the Site, or those which support transitory or mobile species.
Statutory Designated Sites South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar
5.3 The South West London Waterbodies SPA comprises numerous sites and is designated for supporting populations of gadwall Anas strepera and shoveler Anas clypeata. The closest component sites of the SPA are located c.2km from the Site. Importantly there is no ecological connectivity between the Site and the SPA by which an impact could occur. The sites are separated by the River Thames and/or major roads and urban conurbations.
5.4 A key consideration for SPAs (which are designated for birds) is whether the qualifying bird species are reliant upon habitats located offsite, including those within or adjacent to the Site and affected by the proposed scheme. Habitats within the Site, including the River Ash corridor, are considered to be of negligible importance in supporting gadwall or shoveler during winter. Indeed, during winter (for which the SPA designation relates) both of these species favour large areas of open water, including sheltered lakes and reservoirs.
5.5 The Site is also considered to be of negligible importance to the SPA populations of these species during summer. Shoveler tend to avoid watercourses with overhanging vegetation, as occurs along the River Ash corridor within and adjacent to the Site, and whilst gadwall will utilise wooded river corridors, neither of these species was recorded during the breeding bird survey, which incorporated the River Ash.
5.6 The Queen Mary reservoir to the north of the Site is likely to provide suitable habitat conditions for these species. However, the reservoir is not publically accessible and is screened from the development site by its raised height and separating embankment. As a result, the proposed scheme is not expected to result in any disturbance or impact to this waterbody.
5.7 As a result, the proposed scheme would not result in any likely significant effect on the South West London Waterbodies SPA or Ramsar and therefore no further consideration of this site or ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) is required.
Non-statutory Queen Mary Reservoir SNCI
5.8 The Queen Mary Reservoir SNCI is located immediately to the north of the Site. It comprises a large body of open water with tightly grazed and raised embankments. It supports gadwall and shoveler and is therefore likely to contribute, at least to some extent, to the maintenance of the South West London SPA and Ramsar populations of these species. In addition, the Site is of International Importance within the UK for Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus and of National Importance in Great Britain for Herring Gull Larus argentatus ssp. pontoppidan. The site is of also of National Importance in Great Britain for Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus.
5.9 Despite its proximity, the SNCI is separated from the Site by a steep raised embankment and is not accessible to members of the public. The bird species for which the SNCI designation relates are not dependent upon those occurring within the Site. Elevated vantage inspections of buildings were completed as part of the breeding bird survey visits to determine whether gull species were
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 55 August 2018 nesting on the roofs. No nesting sites were identified. As a result, the proposed scheme is not considered likely to have any notable effect on the Queen Mary reservoir SNCI. West of Queen Mary Reservoir SNCI
5.10 Located approximately 200m upstream from the Site, this SNCI comprises a complex of lakes, scrub and grassland with ruderal communities created by old gravel workings. It supports a wintering wildfowl assemblage of County importance including the Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius, Kingfisher Alcedo atthis, Water Rail Rallus aquaticus and Smew Margus albellus, together with rare plants.
5.11 The SNCI is located upstream from the Site and therefore, the potential for pollution of siltation events to occur is minimal. In addition, there is no direct public access between the sites, and therefore the potential for increases recreational disturbance is negligible.
5.12 Little ringed plover, which is listed within the SNCI description, was recorded in the southwest corner of the Site during the breeding bird survey, and this species is likely to have nested at the Site. However, the habitat type utilised was established ephemeral short perennial vegetation on recently disturbed ground. This habitat was temporary in nature following disturbance associated with recent mineral extraction workings. The habitat has since been levelled and reinstated as arable habitat, and therefore no longer provides optimal nesting habitat for little ringed plover. As a result, the development is not considered to impact upon the little ringed plover population associated with the SNCI, or at the local scale.
5.13 Proposed ecological enhancements which will be provided are expected to benefit wetland birds including kingfisher, for which a nesting bank will be provided, and water rail which will benefit from increases in aquatic marginal vegetation. As a result, the proposals would strengthen and support the ecological integrity of the SNIC. Therefore, no adverse effects on the SNCI are anticipated and no specific mitigation and avoidance measures are required for this site. River Ash Shepperton Green SNCI
5.14 This SNCI incorporates part of the River Ash located downstream from the Site. It is designated for supporting a gently flowing river with overgrown riverbank which supports marginal and aquatic vegetation. This stretch of river also supports the BAP priority species, European Eel Anguilla Anguilla, and three Nationally Scarce plant species; Fringed Water-lily Nymphoides peltata, Intermediate Waterstarwort Callitriche hamulata & Yellow Water-lily Nuphar lutea.
5.15 There is potential for tree felling and construction operations, particularly the construction of the road bridge, to result in changes in water quality including pollution and siltation which has the potential to adversely affect this SNCI downstream. As a result the avoidance and mitigation measures described below will be implemented to ensure that such impacts are avoided.
Avoidance and Mitigation
5.16 In order to ensure potential impacts on the River Ash Shepperton Green SNCI are avoided, all riparian works, and particularly the construction of the road bridge, will be completed in accordance with a detailed riparian construction management plan and pollution protection plan, which specify strict control of silt, dust and surface water runoff, as well as careful storage of materials to ensure no accidental spillages. Specialist riparian construction techniques will be employed as appropriate, including the use of filtering and settlement methods, such as sedi-mats and straw bales, dam systems, and silt curtains. In addition, works in the riparian zone will be completed during suitably dry weather conditions during low flow conditions.
Habitats
5.17 Following completion of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, recommendations were provided to inform scheme design, seeking to avoid and minimising adverse ecological effects from the outset and maximise opportunities for biodiversity net gain. The scheme design and overview of the
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 56 August 2018 strategy for ecological enhancement of the Site is summarised in Appendix 1 and detailed in the ‘Design and Access Statement’ which accompanies the masterplan application.
5.18 The majority of the Site, and the areas within which most of the development footprint will be focused, comprise land uses of negligible ecological value including hardstanding, buildings, and ‘backlots’ which have historically been subject to extensive and ongoing disturbance, including remodelling of ground profiles and mineral extraction activities. As a result, the majority of the Site is relatively poor in terms of its ecological value.
5.19 Habitat features of ecological value within the Site include the River Ash and its associated woodland corridor, and fields in the northwest and north of the Site which support semi-improved neutral grassland. The grasslands support a relatively rich floristic diversity. The northwest field is regularly grazed by sheep and mown and therefore lacks structural diversity (for example to be suitable for supporting small mammals and reptiles), whereas the north field does support such a sward structure.
5.20 The River Ash corridor separates the existing studio from the expansion site to the south of the river and this corridor represents a notable ecological feature within the Site and the wider landscape. The corridor comprises a linear belt of semi-natural woodland along the River Ash, and extends to the northwest of the Site where it enters an area of ancient woodland.
5.21 The part of the River Ash corridor located within the Site boundary is currently lacking appropriate ecological management and as such its potential ecological value is not currently being fulfilled. Much of the watercourse is heavily shaded by a mature tree canopy and is therefore devoid of aquatic macrophytes cover for much of its length, and the watercourse often comprises eutrophic and silted backwaters lacking in habitat niches or structural diversity.
5.22 Much of the woodland understorey and ground flora is also lacking in structural or floristic diversity, again as a result of excessive shading. In the absence of appropriate woodland management, an increase in the prevalence of these negative factors and a further reduction in the ecological value of the River Ash corridor would be expected. Nevertheless, the River Ash and associated woodland provides an essential habitat resource for a range of species, including plants, birds, bats, otter, fish and invertebrates, and also provides habitat connectivity with the River Colne and the River Thames locally. It is therefore likely to represent an important movement corridor within the wider landscape.
5.23 In the absence of mitigation, proposals would result in impacts to the sites ecological value as a result of the loss of semi-improved neutral grasslands, and through loss of woodland habitat as a result of the road bridge crossing. However, following the provision of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, and those which go beyond mitigation to provide additional enhancement, an overall net gain for biodiversity is predicted.
5.24 Such avoidance and mitigation would include sensitive scheme design which seeks to avoid ecologically valuable features in the first instance (e.g. trees with high bat roost potential), and also by providing measures which maximise the value of both the River Ash corridor and the wider site and landscape through creation of additional habitat, strengthening of linear corridors, and provision of beneficial management in perpetuity. Ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections below.
Avoidance and Mitigation
5.25 Proposals will result in the loss of woodland and semi-improved neutral grassland. Both of which are habitats of principal importance. As a result, the following mitigation measures will be provided:
• Provision of protective fencing for retained habitats with ecological importance, such as retained trees and woodland where these may otherwise be affected by works through root compaction and encroachment.
• Best practice measures to minimise dust and other contamination impacts, including as a result of surface runoff.
• Implementation of appropriate tree protection zones (at least 15 times larger than the diameter of any veteran trees or 5m from the edge of its canopy from proposed development).
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 57 August 2018 • Management of the wider River Ash woodland to maximise its biodiversity value, including through selective thinning, rotational cutting of glades and scrub vegetation, coppicing, and planting of new disease resistant native tree species to improve quality, structure and species diversity.
• Creation of additional habitat of principal importance elsewhere within the Site, including woodland, scrub, wetland swales, and wet meadow grassland (see Appendix 1 and the Design and Access Statement (DAS)). Compensation of woodland loss
5.26 The loss of woodland cannot be mitigated for in the short to medium term. As a result, the proposed scheme will provide appropriate compensation measures in the form of considerably more woodland habitat than will be lost, and this woodland habitat will be managed to maximise its ecological benefit in the future 9for example through coppicing and creation of woodland glades to improve quality, structure and species diversity.
5.27 Such compensation will include planting of new native woodland which incorporates semi-mature trees. Such planting is proposed along the western site boundary, and will provide additional suitable opportunities for species, such as bats and birds.
Enhancement
5.28 As detailed above, the loss of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and semi-improved neutral grassland will be mitigated for by the provision of considerably more woodland habitat, and the creation of additional habitats of principal importance as part of scheme design. Therefore, habitat loss associated with the scheme would be outweighed by the creation, enhancement and long term management of habitats and features within and adjacent to the Site. Crucially, the proposal provides the opportunity to maximise the ecological value of the River Ash corridor in perpetuity, by restoring connectivity with ecological networks in the wider landscape and tackling existing negative factors. As a result, the proposals would, on balance, provide biodiversity net gain in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.29 The approach to the ecological enhancement strategy for the site is provided in the DAS and is summarised in Appendix 1, which includes an extracted plan from the same document. A summary of the key ecological benefits is provided in Table 5.1 below and it is expected that these opportunities would be developed further at the reserved matters stage, and secured in perpetuity through an overarching management plan.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 58 August 2018 Table 5.1: Summary of Habitat Enhancements
Enhanced Biodiversity The biodiversity of the River Ash corridor will be maximised by diversifying the availability of different habitat niches, through habitat creation, provision of specific features, and maintained and maximised in perpetuity through beneficial management. This will be achieved through creation and management of new wetland habitats, management of woodland and scrub habitats, and through in-channel river enhancements. High Quality Water Environment Improved water quality will be encouraged through the removal of excessive fallen trees, selective management of aquatic and marginal vegetation and thinning of trees and scrub to reduce shading. Surface water run-off from the development areas will be cleansed and attenuated before entering watercourses. Ecological Connectivity Improved ecological connectivity will be achieved by provision of new linear habitat corridors including wetland swales, wet ditches, wildflower verges, linear woodland and scrub, and the enhancements to the existing riparian and woodland corridor. This will strengthen the quality and provision of ecological networks linking to the south, and ancient woodland to the northwest. Species-specific enhancements These are described in more detail in the relevant sections below but will include specific habitat features aimed at benefitting protected and notable species, for example, the provision of bat and bird boxes aimed at species of principal importance along with the provision of a kingfisher nesting bank and otter holt features located in areas not accessible to the public. Multi-Functional and Integrated Landscape Landscape design will include dual ‘Green and Blue’ infrastructure such as wet woodland/SUDs/flood control works which serves a landscape or attenuation purpose whilst also providing valuable ecological habitat corridors. Access Management Design of paths and infrastructure, together with signage and way markers will seek to guide public access to particular areas, for example through the provision of footbridges, naturalistic fencing, and scrub management, to ensure that disturbance is minimised in sensitive locations. Habitat Management A habitat management plan will seek to ensure that the value of habitats are maximised in the long term to create a diverse range of habitat niches. This will include specific management of the River Ash corridor which seeks to ensure that a range of successional stages of woodland are supported, ensuring tree longevity and resistance to diseases. Creation of Woodland Glades
The creation of woodland glades will improve the diversity and richness of the woodland ground flora and shrub understorey by increasing light levels. Woodland glades typically support increased biodiversity because they support a range of habitat micro niches favoured by small mammals, reptiles, birds and invertebrates. This will be targeted to areas of shaded less diverse woodland with the retention of more mature tree specimens, and can be achieved with the incorporation of coppicing management techniques. Pond/Wetland creation Creation of ponds and wetlands within the River Ash corridor will provide a habitat type of high ecological value and will be likely to provide opportunities for amphibians, birds, reptiles, mammals and invertebrates. Wetland design will seek to create a variety of conditions, including for example ponds within woodland glades, and also within open areas. The ecological value of ponds is typically maximised when they support a range of water depths and are surrounded by terrestrial habitats of high ecological value, such as rough grasslands and woodland habitats. Deadwood features
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 59 August 2018 Creation of deadwood features, such as log and brash piles will be provided using the arisings of woodland management. Such features will provide valuable habitat for reptiles, small mammals and invertebrates. Provision of deadwood will also be particularly beneficial in parallel with creation of woodland glades and coppicing as detailed above. Visitor Engagement and Interpretation Improvements in access will be coupled with provision of additional educational resources such as interpretation boards which provide an interpretation of the River Ash’s history, its ecological interest, and a map of the available access routes.
Bats
5.30 Relevant legislation afforded to bats is detailed in Appendix 2.
Discussion Main Studio – Roosts
5.31 A total of four bat roosts were identified during the emergence and re-entry surveys, within B40, B45 and B3 in the main Studio area. The locations of these roosts are shown in Figure 2.1, in Appendix 3. All of these were low status day roosts and are likely to have been used by singleton bats, as a maximum of one bat was recorded entering or exiting the roost per survey. Species recorded roosting were common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, unidentified pipistrelle species and brown long-eared bat.
5.32 A single roost was also recorded in tree (Tr2) in the main Studio area. There are no proposals to fell this tree and is therefore not considered further in this report. If proposals change, licencing and mitigation would be required. Laleham Nurseries – Roosts
5.33 A number of buildings within the Site were recorded with potential to support roosting bats, including buildings B2, B4 and B6, which were identified as having high bat roost potential and building 14, which was identified as having low bat roost potential (see Figure 3.2 in Appendix 3).
5.34 During the emergence/re-entry surveys bat roosts were recorded for buildings B2, B4, B6 and B7 at Laleham Nurseries. The locations of these roosts are detailed above in the ‘Results’ Section. All of these were low status day roosts and are likely to be used by singleton bats, as a maximum of one bat was recorded emerging/re-entering each feature during the surveys. Species recorded roosting were common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat.
5.35 It should be noted that B7 was not initially subject to survey; however during the first emergence/re-entry survey a singleton bat was recorded returning to a roost under the corrugated metal on the northern aspect. This building was therefore subject to full three surveys.
Licencing Requirements
5.36 The scheme design proposes the demolition of buildings, which will result in the loss of low status roosts within the Site. In order for works to go ahead, this will require a Natural England (NE) European Protected Species (EPS) Licence and appropriate mitigation will be required. Given the low status of this roost a ‘low impact’ approach to licensing is considered appropriate as outlined below. River Ash – Trees
5.37 An initial bat inspection of trees was undertaken at two locations along the River Ash to inform proposals to build a road and footbridge. The findings of the survey identified a small number of trees with high and low bat roost potential. The scheme has been sensitively designed to minimise impacts to bats by avoiding trees with bat roost potential, particularly trees with high bat roost potential.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 60 August 2018 5.38 Proposals will not result in the loss of trees with moderate or high bat roost potential and impacts in relation to proposed development are therefore not considered further. If proposals change and trees with high bat roost potential are to be lost, further surveys would be required to inform requirements for licencing and mitigation.
5.39 Proposals will however result in the loss of several trees with low bat roost potential. As a result a precautionary method of felling will be required, which will involve soft felling of these trees in a sensitive manner by cutting above and below the potential bat roost feature and lowering the cut section to the ground by rope. Any lowered sections would be positioned with the cavity feature in an upright position (or to the side if rain may occur) within suitable habitat outside the works area, again to allow the bat to disperse of its own accord. Habitat Assessment
5.40 In general, the majority of the Site is of low value for bats, consisting of open exposed areas of bare ground and buildings devoid of semi-natural habitat features. Habitats of increased value for bat foraging included scattered trees, rough grassland, scrub, riparian habitats and woodland. Woodland also provided optimal habitat for commuting and roosting.
5.41 The River Ash corridor in particular and its associated woodland, supported high levels of foraging and commuting activity throughout. The static monitoring indicated comparatively high levels of use of this corridor. Activity here often commenced within half an hour after sunset and finished less than half an hour before dawn, indicating the likely presence of nearby roosts and it is likely that the woodland corridor here is important in maintaining the populations of a variety of bat species, including during the winter hibernation and summer breeding periods.
5.42 Surveys also indicated comparatively high levels of bat foraging and commuting activity in the north west of the Site. This area comprises semi-improved neutral grassland with relatively low levels of sheep grazing, bordered by woodlands, tree lines, and riparian habitats. The variety of habitats was reflected by the species recorded including those typical of open water such as Nathusius pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat, in addition to woodland species such as brown long- eared bat, and those associated with open habitats such as Noctule and Leisler’s bats.
5.43 In contrast, the studios, open areas of bare ground and hardstanding and backlots which comprise the majority of the development footprint, supported very low levels of bat activity, with the majority of records comprising brief commuting passes and given that these areas are subjected to high levels of lighting and/or an absence of favourable habitats, they are considered to provide habitat of low importance for bats.
5.44 The minerals extraction site and associated arable habitat adjacent to the west of the Site also supported low levels of activity and this probably a reflection of the absence of favourable habitats, poor floristic and structural diversity and high levels of exposure to prevailing weather conditions.
5.45 At least nine species of bat were positively identified as being present within the Site during the activity and static monitoring surveys. Common and soprano pipistrelles, which are relatively common and widespread species, represented the highest levels of activity, comprising 35.09% and 48.37% of all bat passes respectively (static monitoring and activity transect results combined).
5.46 Given the estimated regional population levels of Nathusius pipistrelle, parts of the Site supported relatively high levels of activity of this species (8.53% of all bat registrations) and this activity was concentrated in the northwest of the Site. This species often forages over or near large water bodies19 and is likely to be using the Queen Mary Reservoir to the north, in addition to the river corridor, which helps to connect the reservoir to other suitable habitats. Noctule, Leisler’s bat and Daubenton’s bat, which also often forage over open water bodies, were also regularly recorded.
5.47 The following species were also recorded in low numbers: serotine; brown long-eared bat; Myotis calls with the characteristics of whiskered, Brandt’s or Alcathoe bats; and unidentified Myotis sp.
19 Habitat Selection in Nathusius Pipistrelles (Pipistrellus nathusii): The Importance of Wetlands. Acta Chiropterologica, 11 (1), 149- 155.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 61 August 2018 calls. These species would be expected to be associated primarily with tree lines, woodlands and the River Ash corridor.
5.48 The River Ash and associated woodland is unlit and therefore acts as a dark corridor for commuting bats. In the wider landscape, this linear feature is ecologically linked with an extensive network of riparian and open water habitat (including the River Thames and associated reservoirs), as well as woodland and open grassland habitats. This provides habitat connectivity and commuting routes for bats across a large area and opportunities for dispersal to wider populations. The woodland within the River Ash corridor is also likely to support breeding and hibernation roosts for various bat species.
5.49 In summary, whilst the majority of the Site is of low importance for bats the River Ash corridor in particular provides a feature of importance for bat species at the local landscape scale, and is likely to be susceptible to severance as a result of fragmentation and lighting. Any detailed development proposals will need to ensure that continued habitat connectivity along this corridor is maintained through provision of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures as detailed below.
Avoidance and Mitigation
5.50 The loss of semi-natural habitat and in particular the loss of woodland along the River Ash corridor will result in the loss of habitat for bats to forage, commute and potentially also for low status roosting. To mitigate for these impacts, the scheme design sought to include a variety of measures, which will lead to a long term improvement of habitats that are of key importance for bats. In particular, the design proposes to manage and enhance the existing River Ash corridor through planting of new woodland and tree belts to improve habitat connectivity into the wider landscape, by creating wet woodland, swales, new ponds, open glades and wildflower verges, which will improve the structural diversity within the Site and in turn provide optimal habitat for bat foraging, commute and roost. The provision of these enhancements are considered to provide significant improvements to existing semi-natural habitat, which at the moment is largely left unmanaged and in poor condition, and is considered to provide sufficient mitigation for loss of habitat within the Site.
5.51 In relation to loss of roosts as a result of proposed building loss, the mitigation measures detailed below in Table 5.2 will likely be required. This will be agreed with Natural England as part of the licencing process.
Table 5.2: Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Provision of Alternative Bat Roost Prior to Works Prior to commencement of the works, alternative bat roosts, usually in the form of bat boxes, will be required in close proximity to the roost affected. This would provide an alternative roost location prior to exclusion of bats and/or roost closure. Bat boxes required will need to be suitable for soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats and will need to fixed to a building or tree.
Soft Demolition of Bat Roost To remove the bat roosts identified, a precautionary approach would be applied to minimise the risk to bats. This would include the exclusion of the roost if appropriate prior to works and careful removal of features where the roost was recorded under the supervision of a suitably qualified and licenced bat ecologist. Sensitive Timings of Work Works to the bat roost would be timed during autumn (September-early November) or spring (March-April) when bats are least sensitive to disturbance (i.e. not breeding or hibernating) and unlikely to be dependent upon a single roost feature. Where the presence of bats cannot be ruled out, it may be necessary to use exclusion device(s) which would remain in situ for a minimum of 7 days during weather conditions suitable for bat activity (above 10oC and dry). Provision of Like-for-like Replacement Bat Roosts Best practice mitigation guidelines issued by NE specify that like-for-like replacement of bat
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 62 August 2018 roosting features is generally expected where possible. As part of the scheme design, there are proposals to include a number of bat boxes, which will provide suitable mitigation for the loss of roosts within the Site. Sensitive Lighting To minimise the potential effect of lighting on bats, the scheme design will incorporate a sensitive light scheme, which minimises light spill on semi-natural habitat, such as woodland habitat within and adjacent to the Site. Potential design measures to minimise light spill will include:
• Avoidance of lighting wherever possible, particularly in the vicinity of retained trees, scrub and watercourses;
• Use of lighting columns at a height which will not result on light spill to the tree canopy, and strongly directional lighting with cowling, shields and/or hoods to direct lighting downwards and away from the canopy;
• Use of LED lighting which does not emit UV (less attractive to flying insects); • Use of motion sensor lighting; • Use of timers to restrict lighting to required periods; and • Use of the lowest lux possible within the Site’s operational, safety and security parameters.
Enhancements
5.52 The habitat enhancements listed in Table 5.1 above would be of benefit to bats and would likely enhance the quality of the Site for bats by increasing the extent and quality of preferred habitat types for foraging and commuting, including woodland edges, tree lines, and wetlands. In addition to this, the scheme design will include a range of woodcrete bat box designs mounted on trees, and specifically aimed at supporting a variety of bat species throughout semi-natural habitats within the Site.
Great Crested Newt
Discussion
5.53 Legal protection afforded to badger is summarised in Appendix 2. 5.54 No waterbodies suitable for breeding GCN occur within the Site. No GCN were recorded within any of the offsite waterbodies during the breeding surveys, however eDNA testing returned a positive result for ditches 1 and 2. It is therefore concluded that GCN do not breed within offsite waterbodies located within 500m of the Site but GCN populations associated with breeding waterbodies located beyond 500m from the site are likely to use these terrestrial and aquatic habitat feature for dispersal and sheltering/overwintering.
Avoidance and Mitigation
5.55 In light of the survey findings, and the distance between the ditches and the development site, GCN are considered unlikely to occur within the Site and are unlikely to be affected by the proposed scheme. As a result, no further mitigation is required in respect of GCN.
Enhancements
5.56 The proposed scheme (see Appendix 1 and ‘Enhancements’ described in under the ‘Habitats’ section above) will include the creation of wetlands and ponds which would provide potential breeding opportunities for GCN, whilst peripheral scrub and woodland planting would provide optimal terrestrial habitat and increase connectivity for this species locally. As a result, the proposed scheme is considered likely to strengthen and benefit the local GCN population.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 63 August 2018 Otter and water Vole
Discussion
5.57 Legal protection afforded to otter and water vole is summarised in Appendix 2. Otter
5.58 The locations of spraint records in both 2016 and 2018 demonstrate use of the River Ash corridor by otter. However, the abundance and age class of spraint does not provide an accurate indicator of otter activity or spatial distribution within an area, or the relative importance of a habitat or area for otter populations.
5.59 The camera trap findings did not record this species despite being in situ for over four months. In light of this, otters are considered unlikely to occur along this section of the River Ash with any regularity and the area is unlikely to support a permanent population or the presence of high status (i.e. breeding) shelters. Otters will typically utilise extensive home territories incorporating tens of kilometres. As a result, the River Ash corridor is considered likely to support otter dispersal and foraging activities of one or more otter territories within the wider landscape.
5.60 The suitability for otters to utilise optimal habitats for sheltering is likely to be greatly reduced by relatively high levels of recreational access and the regular presence of dogs, particularly as much of the Site is publically accessible via a series of formal and informal footpaths. However, given the presence of suitable habitat along the River Ash corridor, there is potential for the relative usage by otter to change both seasonally and temporally. Indeed, as described above, otter territories are extensive and therefore the Site is likely to provide a commuting route, migration corridor and foraging resource of varying levels of importance over time.
5.61 The scheme has been designed from the outset to minimise impacts to the River Ash and associated habitats by incorporating buffers and focusing the road crossing to an area which would minimise loss of mature trees and woodland. Nevertheless, the creation of a new access road in the west of the Site will require the loss of woodland habitat and the construction of a road bridge across the River Ash.
5.62 In the absence of mitigation the scheme has the potential to fragment the River Ash corridor as an important movement corridor for otter, increase the risk of road traffic collision at the bridge location, and degrade water quality through run-off and spillage associated with construction. Furthermore, improvements to existing footpaths and the provision of footbridges have the potential to increase recreational disturbance to otters in areas which currently experience relatively low levels of public access.
5.63 It should be recognised that, given the transitional usage of the Site by otter, the likelihood of significant levels of disturbance to this species is low, and therefore, providing that the appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures detailed below are implemented, such potential impacts will be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme to this species. Water vole
5.64 No evidence of water vole was recorded within or close to the Site and as a result, no impacts to this species are predicted as a result of the scheme. This species is known to occur locally but typically favours waterbodies with extensive areas of luxuriant and varied riparian vegetation. The watercourses within the Site are generally shaded, with minimal aquatic marginal vegetation. Areas which support suitable vegetation are restricted to small and isolated locations where clearings in the tree canopy allow sufficient sunlight to reach the water column. These conditions are considered likely to restrict the ability of water vole to establish or maintain permanent populations within or close to the Site.
Avoidance and Mitigation Otter
5.65 In light of the potential threats to otter, as detailed above, the specific avoidance and mitigation measures detailed in Table 5.3 below will be employed to ensure that impacts to otter are avoided and the value of the River Ash corridor for this species retained.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 64 August 2018 Table 5.3: Otter Avoidance and Mitigation
Pre-inspection Surveys Pre-inspection surveys of the River Ash and associated woodland will be completed prior to commencement of construction to identify the presence of any otter shelters, and inform any specific mitigation, such as implementation of disturbance buffers and timing of works. Protective Fencing Riparian habitats will be separated from the development sites with Heras fencing, specification as per BS5387: 2005. This will be positioned as far as possible from the river to maintain a suitable distance buffer from the development work to ensure that encroachment and spillage is avoided. Best Practice Construction Best practice construction measures will be employed to minimise the risk of road traffic mortality through the provision of otter fencing and speed limits. Riparian Construction Management Plan All riparian works will be completed in accordance with a detailed riparian construction management plan and pollution protection plan, which specify strict control of silt, dust and surface water runoff, as well as careful storage of materials to ensure no accidental spillages. Specialist riparian construction techniques will be required, including the use of filtering and settlement methods, such as sedi-mats and straw bales, dam systems, and silt curtains. In addition, works in the riparian zone will be completed during suitably dry weather conditions during low flow conditions. Sensitive Lighting A sensitive lighting scheme will ensure that direct lighting of water courses and semi-natural habitat associated with the River Ash corridor will be avoided. Micrositing of Road Bridge The road bridge location has and will continue to be positioned within an area of woodland which supports minimal understorey, scrub or other features which could support sheltering otters. And therefore the potential for loss of otter shelters is negligible. Road Bridge Design The detailed design of the road bridge over the River Ash and associated streams will be designed to ensure safe passage by otter underneath the bridge even during high flow levels. This will be achieved by incorporating a large bridge opening which includes natural earth embankments or ‘otter ledges’ to facilitate safe passage underneath the bridge. This will be used in parallel with ‘otter fencing’ along the edges of the carriageway to prevent otters crossing the road, and thereby minimising the potential for traffic collision. Access Management The River Ash corridor currently provides a well-used natural open space which attracts recreational activities such as walking and dog walking. Improvements to the footpath network and provision of footbridges may increase the potential for disturbance to otter in areas which are currently relatively secluded. Therefore, design and access proposals (see Appendix 1), and woodland management will include provision of natural barriers to movement to ensure extensive areas of habitat, including dense scrub and additional artificial otter shelters remain inaccessible and free from disturbance.
Water vole
5.66 No water vole was recorded and the habitats currently present within the Site are considered unsuitable for supporting permanent populations. As a result, no specific avoidance or mitigation measures are required in respect of water vole.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 65 August 2018 Enhancements Otter
5.67 Despite the potential for disturbance to this species, the scheme is considered to result in an enhancement and strengthening of the River Ash corridor for otter, through habitat enhancement, and provision of adjacent associated habitat creation. Habitat enhancements associated with scheme design are shown in Appendix 1, and described under the ‘Habitats’ section above. Beneficial enhancements for otter will include:
• Provision of two artificial otter holts which would increase the suitability of the Site for otter by increasing sheltering opportunities. These could be in the form of pre-cut ‘flat-pack’ or created using timber and brash from the woodland enhancements.
• The introduction of an appropriate coppicing regime or pollarding of large mature trees along the river would also help to prevent collapse of trees that may currently provide suitable sheltering sites or be likely to in the future.
• Provision of naturalistic fencing and/ or dry islands planted with scrub along parts of the River Ash corridor would ensure areas are provided which are inaccessible to the public, thereby reducing the potential for disturbance to otters using the Site at any given time.
• The proposals will provide more structured access within the woodland and river corridor through naturalistic barriers and fencing, path provision and creation of footbridges. This would help to relieve informal access pressures and antisocial activities on certain areas by directing human movements to less sensitive areas, thereby providing undisturbed wildlife refuges for otter.
• The habitat enhancements proposed along the River Ash would seek to increase the extent, connectivity and diversity of riparian marginal habitat, for example through selective tee thinning and also to diversify in-channel habitat niches. This would increase the quality of the river as a foraging resource for otter.
• The creation of ponds and linear features within the scheme design, including wet ditches and ponds in the northwest of the Site would also increase the extent and quality of foraging habitat for otter, as well as improving connectivity between wetland habitats in the wider landscape.
• The existing studio site is extremely well lit which is likely reduce the suitability of the adjacent section of the River Ash for otter and other species. The proposed scheme will seek to reduce light spill to the River Ash and associated woodland, for example though reductions in lighting and provision of semi-natural habitat screening. Guidance on wildlife friendly lighting which will be adhered to wherever possible is provided by the Bat Conservation Trust and can be found at: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html
• The preparation and implementation of a landscape and habitat management plan, with a particular focus on the River Ash corridor, would ensure that the ecological benefit of habitat creation and enhancement within the Site is maximised and maintained in perpetuity.
Water vole
5.68 The proposals (see Appendix 1 and ‘Enhancements’ under the ‘Habitats’ section described above) include the creation of wetlands and ponds where marginal vegetation will be encouraged, whilst also providing management of riparian woodland and scrub habitat to maximise the aquatic diversity of water courses. As a result, the proposals are considered likely to increase the suitability of the Site for supporting water vole, and may encourage this species to colonise and establish permanent populations in the future.
Breeding Birds
Discussion
5.69 Legal protection afforded to breeding birds is summarised in Appendix 2.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 66 August 2018 5.70 An assessment of the relative importance of the bird community recorded within the survey area, which included the Site, and adjacent woodlands and arable habitat, was completed. Based on the estimated number of breeding territories for each species, no species populations within the survey area were considered to exceed a Local level of importance.
5.71 In terms of diversity (species richness), a total of 69 bird species were recorded within the survey area, including 61 which were recorded displaying behaviour indicative of breeding. In accordance with the method described in Section 2, this indicates that the wider survey area is of County importance for its breeding bird population in terms of species richness. In terms of the Index of Diversity, a score of 18 (see Table 3.2) indicates that the wider survey area is of Local Importance for breeding birds.
5.72 In terms of rarity, no species considered to be nationally rare (i.e. species numbering 1000 or fewer breeding pairs) were recorded.
5.73 It is important to recognise that the bird surveys included a much wider area and diverse number of habitat types than those recorded within the development site. This was to provide additional contextual information for informing scheme design options and opportunities for ecological enhancement. As such, the assessment of bird communities suggests an increased level of importance than could be attributed to the Site alone.
5.74 In light of the survey findings, and on balance, the Site (which includes immediately adjacent habitats) is considered to be of Local importance for its breeding bird assemblage.
5.75 The most important area for bird populations within the Site is the River Ash corridor and woodland around the Site periphery. These areas support the most diverse breeding assemblage and are also important in supporting notable species such as lesser spotted woodpecker, spotted flycatcher, starling, and kingfisher. Many of the species within these habitats are relatively common, such as finches, warblers and tits, but their presence and abundance contributes to a valuable breeding bird assemblage and therefore their contribution to the overall value has been recognised.
5.76 Arable fields to the south west supported the presence of breeding red listed birds of conservation concern including lapwing, meadow pipit and skylark. This area, and the breeding territories of these species, are located out with the Site boundary and the scheme is therefore considered unlikely to affect these species.
5.77 Ephemeral habitats, including those in the south west corner of the Site, had recently established at the time of survey following ground disturbance associated with the active mineral workings. These areas provided a range of unique habitat niches within the Site, including wet areas of brownfield land, and emergent aquatic vegetation. These vegetation types supported notable species such as little-ringed plover, lapwing and reed bunting. Despite the contribution of these areas to increase habitat diversity within the Site, it is recognised that their value is largely temporary and their appearance represents a snapshot in time following cessation of mineral excavations. Indeed, since the survey was completed these areas have been reinstated as level arable fields, and therefore their value for the above species has already been removed.
5.78 The Site has been sensitively designed to focus development to areas of existing hardstanding, buildings, existing backlots and restored mineral workings. In addition, the grassland fields in the north and northwest of the Site did not support nesting birds. As a result, impacts to breeding birds will be predominantly associated with the loss of woodland habitat to facilitate the construction of the road bridge. This area supported breeding territories of red or amber listed birds of conservation concern including a single mistle thrush territory, three song thrush territories, and a tawny owl territory. In addition, lesser spotted woodpecker and kingfisher were also recorded in the general vicinity of the road bridge crossing and may include the area within breeding territories.
5.79 The loss of woodland in the location of the road bridge crossing has the potential, in the absence of mitigation, to result in a reduction in the extent and quality of nesting habitat for birds of conservation concern, and to result in the destruction of bird nests. As a result, mitigation and avoidance measures will be required as detailed below.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 67 August 2018 Avoidance and Mitigation The measures which will be incorporated to ensure that the impacts associated with habitat loss are successfully minimised and mitigated are detailed in Table 5.4 below.
Table 5.4: Bird Avoidance and Mitigation
Timing of Works The clearance of semi-natural habitat and buildings as a result of construction and development has the potential to destroy bird nests, and therefore clearance of vegetation and demolition of buildings should be undertaken between September- February (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season. Kingfisher was recorded during the breeding season and is likely to be nesting along the River Ash. This species is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and is therefore protected against disturbance at their nesting sites. As a result, it is recommended that potentially disturbing works occur outside the nesting season, Pre-Inspection Survey for Kingfisher Where it is not possible to time construction works in the vicinity of the River Ash for outside the breeding season, a specific kingfisher nesting inspection of the area affected will be carried out prior to commencement of works, and to inform any additional mitigation requirements such as disturbance buffers. Loss of House Sparrow Nesting Habitat Loss of scrub along the northwest edge of the main studios supports a colony of house sparrow, and therefore to mitigate for its loss, additional scrub planting and the provision of house sparrow nesting terraces will be provided within the retained tree lines in the northwest of the Site. Provision of Replacement Habitat Grasslands recorded within the Site, including adjacent to the overflow carpark and northwest grassland, did not support nesting birds but nevertheless are likely to provide invertebrate rich habitat which represents a food resource for a range of bird species. Much of this grassland will be lost and therefore scheme design (see Appendix 1) has sought to incorporate additional alternative habitats of high value for foraging birds including scrub and woodland planting, provision of wetlands, and enhancements to retain grasslands at the Site periphery. In addition, woodland management and enhancement and management of riparian habitat are likely to increase value of foraging habitat for bird species within the Site. As described above, woodland loss in the vicinity of the road bridge would result in a reduction in the extent and quality of nesting habitat for birds of conservation concern. As a result, the scheme design has incorporated extensive planting of woodland and scrub habitats at the Site periphery to maintain the extent and quality of habitat for woodland birds in the long term.
5.80 In addition to the above, the scheme design will include the creation and management of a range of additional habitat types likely to attract new species of conservation concern to the Site, and this is described in more detail below.
Enhancement
5.81 The scheme design has sought to retain and enhance those habitat features of increased value for breeding birds, and those which cannot be easily mitigated, such as mature woodland. Enhancement measures which would contribute towards providing net gain for the Site’s breeding bird assemblage are listed below:
• The creation of wetland habitats including ponds and emergent marginal vegetation would be expected to attract birds of conservation concern such as reed bunting, cuckoo, and the specially protected Cetti’s warbler, whilst also attracting more common wetland species such as reed and sedge warbler
• Woodland and will be enhanced and managed to maximise the diversity of habitat types present. For example, selective thinning and coppicing will encourage a diverse mosaic of
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 68 August 2018 mature canopy, sunny glades and dense scrub, suitable for supporting a wide range of birds of conservation concern such as spotted flycatcher, thrush species, house sparrow and bullfinch.
• Encouragement of increased aquatic marginal vegetation through selective tree thinning would be expected to increase the number and diversity of nesting water birds, including attracting species such as water rail.
• Areas of retained grasslands at the Site periphery and associated with the fringes of wetland habitats will be enhanced through appropriate mowing regimes to allow an increase in floristic diversity. This would increase the amount of suitable habitat for seed eating species such as linnet and insect eating bird species such as spotted flycatcher.
• Woodland planting will seek to strengthen the connectivity between the River Ash corridor within the Site and woodlands to the north and south. This will include strengthening of the woodland edges in the north west of the Site with native tree and scrub planting. This would
• The proposals will provide more structured access within the woodland through path provision, naturalistic barriers and footbridges. This will help to direct public access, relieve the current informal access pressures and reduce antisocial activities in certain areas, thereby increasing the amount of undisturbed wildlife refuges.
• Species specific bird boxes and nesting features will be incorporated onto trees and buildings within the scheme design. A range of different boxes will be provided in order to accommodate a variety of different species, with spotted flycatcher, house sparrow, starling and swifts and house martins being target in particular.
• Finally, preparation and implementation of a landscape and habitat management plan will help to ensure that the ecological benefit of any habitats created and retained within the Site are maximised and maintained in perpetuity.
Badger
Discussion
5.82 Legal protection afforded to badger is summarised in Appendix 2. 5.83 No evidence of badger was recorded during any of the surveys other than one roaming individual seen at the northwest edge of the Site. It can therefore be concluded that the Site is unlikely to represent an important resource for badger, although the Site is likely to be of some value for badger movements and foraging.
5.84 Given the absence of setts within the Site, any future development is considered unlikely to impact badger directly as a result of disturbance or destruction of setts. However, badgers will readily create and utilise new setts and given the confirmed presence of this species within the Site, and the high suitability of woodland and scrub habitats in supporting setts, there is potential for new setts to be established in proximity to areas affected by future works. In the occurrence of such an event, there would be potential for disturbance associated with noise and vibration, and mortality associated with construction activities, entrapment in holes and trenches, and road traffic collision with works vehicles.
5.85 In addition, future development proposals have the potential to affect the badger population using the Site as a result of the loss of foraging habitat, particularly the northwest grassland field, which are likely to support an abundance of earthworms and other invertebrates favoured as a foraging resource by this species.
5.86 Increased human population and accessibility to areas of woodland also has the potential to increase persecution of badger, both intentionally, for example as a result of baiting and digging, and unintentionally, for example as a result of the presence of humans and dogs and associated recreational activities.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 69 August 2018 Avoidance and Mitigation
5.87 No badger setts have been identified within the Site and given that the scheme has been sensitively designed to minimise impacts to woodland and scrub, and includes the creation of wetland, and additional woodland and scrub habitat, the requirement for mitigation in respect of this species is likely to be limited. A summary of avoidance and mitigation measures which will be implemented in respect of badger is provided in Table 5.5 below.
Table 5.5: Badger Avoidance and Mitigation
Replacement Foraging Habitat The loss of grassland in the northwest of the Site has the potential to reduce the foraging resource available for this species, but this will be mitigated by the provision of additional scrub, linear woodland, wetlands and species-rich grasslands as indicated in Appendix 1 and described under ‘Enhancements’ section below. Pre-construction Surveys Given that the presence of a badger has been confirmed within the Site, it is recommended that updated surveys be undertaken prior to commencement of construction operations to ensure that the Site remains free from setts. If any active setts are located in close proximity to areas subject to works, sett closure may be required. In the unlikely event of this being required, it would need to be undertaken under a Natural England licence and in line with best practice guidelines. This would require appropriate mitigation to be agreed with Natural England and may require construction of alternative setts. Best Practice Construction General best practice construction procedures will be adhered to and this will minimise any risk of impacts to badger during construction. This will include:
• Installation of tree and wildlife protection fencing around retained habitats adjacent to development areas; • Restricting working to daytime hours only in the vicinity of semi-natural habitats; • Retaining escape ramps within excavations; and • Secure storage and disposal of chemicals etc. Working Method Statement Any works constituting disturbance to badger setts20, such as construction activities and planting in the vicinity of setts, would need to be undertaken under a Natural England licence, although this is considered highly unlikely to be required. If required a method statement approach would be likely to include use of disturbance buffers, undertaking works by hand or small machinery, and timing the works to avoid the November to June breeding season.
Enhancement
5.88 The scheme design (see Appendix 1 and ‘Enhancements’ under the ‘Habitats’ section described above) includes the provision of new woodland and scrub planting along Site peripheries with a particular focus along the western edge of the Site to strengthen the woodland connectivity along the River Ash, connecting the Site with ancient woodland to the northwest.
5.89 Creation of wetlands, species-rich grasslands and scrub planting will be provided at the periphery of the northwest grassland, whilst additional woodland planting will be provided at the north west Site periphery to provide a buffer to existing ancient woodland adjacent to the Site, and increase the extent of woodland across the Site.
5.90 The River Ash corridor will be enhanced and managed to maximise its ecological benefit. This will include seeking to increase habitat diversity by creating ecotones between successional stages, for example maximising the provision of sunny glades which provide a transition of successional
20 Natural England (209) Badgers and Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing available at publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/153422
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 70 August 2018 habitat stages between grassland, scrub and canopy woodland. This would be expected to maximise the availability of fruit, seed and invertebrate food sources for badger.
5.91 In summary, whilst habitat creation will provide mitigation for the loss of grassland habitats, the extent and quality of habitat, and its continued management, will go beyond what is required to mitigate impacts and enhance the value of the Site for badger.
Reptiles
Discussion
5.92 The majority of the Site is entirely unsuitable for supporting reptiles, consisting of hard surfaces, buildings and areas of recent reinstated ground following historic mineral extraction activities.
5.93 Reptile surveys identified low numbers of grass snake in the far southwest of the survey area, and a single individual recorded along the southern edge of the River Ash corridor within the Site boundary. The majority of survey records were of juvenile individuals and given that grass snake are known to travel up to several kilometres for dispersal and egg-laying, the population present within the Site is considered to be low and typically consisting of transitory individuals.
5.94 The River Ash is likely to provide the most valuable habitat feature for reptiles within the Site. It supports continuous ecological connectivity within the wider landscape and the presence of wetland habitats are a preferred habitat type for grass snake, because they provide favoured prey items including amphibians and fish. Nevertheless, the suitability of the River Ash for grass snake (and other reptiles) is restricted by a general lack of habitat diversity. As described above, the woodland generally lacks structural diversity and a high canopy casts a shade over much of the river channel. As a result, habitat features favoured by reptiles such as sunny glades which support grassland, ruderal vegetation and riparian vegetation are restricted to occasional gaps in the tree canopy along the river corridor.
5.95 No reptiles were recorded within the northern field to the west of the overflow car park, and it is understood that the tall grassland sward in this area had established recently prior to the 2016 survey following a cessation of grazing. As a result, reptiles are considered absent from this area, but given its suitability and connectivity with semi-natural habitats in the wider landscape, grass snake individuals may occur within this area occasionally.
5.96 The northwest grassland comprises fine grasses devoid of a thatched ground layer. Furthermore, the grassland is grazed by sheep and regularly mown. It is therefore considered likely to be of low value for reptiles.
5.97 There is a risk of construction works in areas of woodland, grassland and scrub along the River Ash corridor and at the Site periphery, to result in killing and injury of reptiles, albeit this risk is low given the low numbers recorded and the general mobility of grass snake which is able to relocate considerable distance during their active season. Nevertheless, in line with a precautionary approach to ensure killing and injury is avoided, the following mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation
5.98 Given the small risk of killing and injury to grass snake, a proportionate range of mitigation measures would be required, and such measures would only be required where potentially damaging activities occur within areas suitable for supporting reptiles, such as scrub and tree clearance within the River Ash corridor.
5.99 It is recommended that such mitigation comprise careful habitat management to encourage reptiles to leave the development area prior to commencement of works. This would typically be achieved by implementing gradual habitat manipulation to render areas unsuitable for reptiles over a number of weeks. This should be undertaken during suitably warm weather conditions within the reptile active period between Spring and Autumn to enable reptiles to relocate of their own accord.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 71 August 2018 Enhancement
5.100 The scheme design (see Appendix 1 and ‘Enhancements’ under the ‘Habitats’ section described above) is largely focused on habitat types of low importance to grass snake and therefore potential impacts to this species are considered to be minimal. As a result, the proposed scheme design is likely to provide significant enhancements for grass snake by increasing and maintaining the extent and quality of preferred habitat types within the Site in the long term.
5.101 Scheme design includes the creation of wetlands, ponds, and scrub and species rich grasslands at the Site periphery which would provide optimal habitat conditions for grass snake. Furthermore, the River Ash corridor will be enhanced and managed to maximise its ecological benefit. This will include seeking to increase habitat diversity by creating ecotones between successional stages, for example by maximising the provision of sunny glades which provide a transition of successional habitat stages between grassland, scrub and canopy woodland. These edge habitats are favoured by grass snakes (and other reptiles) because they provide the range of habitat types required for feeding, basking and sheltering. Such areas would be further enhanced by incorporating log and brash piles from materials arising from habitat management operations to provide additional habitat features suitable for basking, sheltering and over wintering.
5.102 Ecological enhancements to the riparian zone, including tree thinning to encourage an increase in marginal aquatic vegetation would also significantly increase the extent of preferred habitat types for grass snake within the Site, and improve connectivity along the River Ash corridor.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 72 August 2018 6 Conclusion
6.1 In conclusion, the majority of the Site, and the areas within which most of the development footprint will be contained, comprise land uses of negligible ecological value. As a result, the majority of the Site is poor in terms of its ecological value.
6.2 Habitat features of ecological value within the Site include the River Ash and its associated woodland corridor, and fields in the northwest and north of the Site which support semi-improved neutral grassland.
6.3 The River Ash corridor represents a notable ecological feature within the Site and the wider landscape, providing a habitat resource for a range of species, including birds, bats, otter, fish, reptiles, and invertebrates, and provides habitat connectivity with the River Colne and the River Thames locally. It is therefore likely to represent an important movement corridor within the wider landscape.
6.4 However, the part of the River Ash corridor located within and in proximity to the Site is currently lacking appropriate ecological management and as such the potential ecological value of this landscape feature is not currently being fulfilled. Much of the River Ash is heavily shaded by a mature tree canopy and is therefore devoid of aquatic macrophytes cover for much of its length, and the watercourse often comprises eutrophic and silted backwaters lacking in habitat niches or structural diversity. Much of the woodland understorey and ground flora is also lacking in structural or floristic diversity, again as a result of excessive shading. A ‘do-nothing’ scenario in the absence of appropriate management would likely see an increase in the prevalence of these negative factors and a further reduction in the ecological value of the River Ash corridor.
6.5 The outline scheme has been sensitively designed from the outset to minimise impacts to key ecological features. Without mitigation, the proposals would result in impacts associated with the loss of semi-improved neutral grassland, and localised woodland habitat. However, the Masterplan seeks avoidance and mitigation of impacts including best practice construction working, particularly in proximity to watercourses, sensitive detailed scheme design which seeks to avoid and retain ecologically valuable features in the first instance (e.g. mature trees), and providing measures which maximise the value of both the River Ash corridor and the wider Site and landscape through the creation of additional habitat and features, strengthening of linear corridors, and provision of beneficial management in perpetuity.
6.6 Habitat mitigation and enhancement will result in a significant increase in the extent and quality of woodland and scrub habitat within the Site, and therefore the loss of woodland habitat to facilitate the road construction would be successfully mitigated in the medium to long term. The scheme will result in a reduction in the extent of semi-improved neutral grassland, and the loss of such habitat cannot be fully mitigated on a like-for-like basis. Nevertheless, the benefits associated with the creation and enhancement of alternative habitat types, including those of principal importance such as wetlands, ponds, wet ditches, woodlands and scrub, would outweigh the loss grassland habitats within the Site.
6.7 Habitats and landscape features considered of importance for protected species will be retained and enhanced as part of the scheme design and when the proposed habitat mitigation and enhancement measures are taken into account, the effect on protected and notable species would be beneficial. For example, diversification of the river corridor would be expected to benefit otter, fish, invertebrates, grass snake, birds and bats, whilst the provision of specific nesting features and wildlife planting as part of scheme design would be expected to benefit specific birds of conservation concern such as song thrush, house sparrow, starling, spotted flycatcher, house martin, swift and kingfisher.
6.8 Bat surveys have confirmed that the scheme will result in the loss of several day roosts. However, these roosts represent low status day roosts of common species, and therefore there is a high degree of confidence that mitigation measures would ensure that the favourable
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 73 August 2018 conservation status of these bat populations is maintained, and a Natural England licence successfully obtained.
6.9 In conclusion, prior to mitigation, the proposals would result in localised impacts to habitats and species. However, when mitigation and enhancement measures are considered, the scheme would provide significant benefits for the Site’s ecology by increasing the value of retained habitats, providing new habitats of high ecological value, strengthening ecological corridors, increasing resilience to habitat fragmentation and climate change, and providing beneficial management in perpetuity. All of which would, on balance, contribute to providing net gain for biodiversity.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 74 August 2018 Appendix 1 Scheme Design
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 75 August 2018 A1 Rev: 250m FaulknerBrowns LLP FaulknerBrowns House Dobson Way Northumbrian Killingworth Tyne upon Newcastle 6QW NE12 2683007 T+44(0)191 2478132 F+44(0)191 Do not scale this drawing this scale not Do media digital from dimensions derive not Do 200 A-05_10-007 N 150 100 FAULKNERBROWNS ARCHITECTS 80 Drawing No: Drawing of: Copyright Design & Drawing © 3542-FBA-00-XX-DR 60 40 PM 3542 20 S4 Suitability: No: Job Checked By: Checked 0m JH Drawn By: Drawn 1 : 2500 : 1 Existing and redeveloped redeveloped and Existing Studios Shepperton expansion Studios Shepperton Proposed Corridor Ash River the to Enhancements Road Studios Road Shepperton access new Proposed footbridge Existing road link Internal parks car Proposed filming external for Backlots House Littleton screening planting, Landscape bunding and access secondary / Emergency space open Private areas storage Flood point control access security Site Planning application boundary application Planning stage sound retained Existing workshop / office retained Existing stage sound New workshop / office New amenity New Scale: ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN ILLUSTRATIVE 1:2500 PLANNING MASTERPLAN SHEPPERTON MASTERPLAN ILLUSTRATIVE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10/08/18 Drawing Status: Drawing Title: Job Title: Drawing Date: Checked By Checked
Drawn By Drawn
d
a
o
R
w
e
N
d
a
o
R
e
g
d
i
r
B
s
'
e
r i
u
q S
Revision Notes Revision
d
a
o
R
d
a
o e
R
e Date n
g
d i
r
e
B
l
s
'
e
r i a
u
q S d
g
a
Queen Mary Mary Queen Reservoir M Rev 4 Checked By Checked Drawn By Drawn
d
a 3
o
R
s
o i
d
u t S Littleton Littleton Recreation Ground 1 16
11
e
v
o
r
G
l l
e
w
n a r C 7 9
d a o R
16 s io d 10 u 3 t 12 S
y a W m a d h a Notes Revision le o t s R A m a h le a L 6 7 3
B Date 13 Rev 3 Checked By Checked 2 15 Drawn By Drawn 10
14 d
a 9 o R
16 n o t r
e
6 p 8 p
e h S
6 7
2 3 B 9 15 15 12 12 5 Date Rev Appendix 2 Policy and Legislation Statutory nature conservation sites and protected species are a ‘material consideration’ in the UK planning process (DCLG 2012). Where planning permission is not required, for example on proposals for external repair to structures, consideration of protected species remains necessary given their protection under UK and EU law. Natural England Standing Advice aims to support Local Planning Authorities decision making in respect of protected species (Natural England 2012). Standing advice is a material consideration in determining the outcome of applications, in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 transpose the requirements of the European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC) into UK law, enabling the designation of protected sites and species at a European level. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) forms the key piece of UK legislation relating to the protection of habitats and species. The Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 provides additional support to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; for example, increasing the level of protection for certain species of reptiles. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 sets out the welfare framework in respect to wild mammals, prohibiting a range of activities that may cause unnecessary suffering. Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England and Wales and priority habitats and species listed on the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) are species which are targeted for conservation. The government has a duty to ensure that involved parties take reasonable practice steps to further the conservation of such species under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2006. In addition, the Act places a biodiversity duty on public authorities who ‘must, in exercising their functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’ (Section 40 [1]). Criteria for selection of national priority habitats and species in the UK include international threat and marked national decline. The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) states (Section 11), that the planning system should minimise impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. It also states that local planning authorities and planning policies should:
• Plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.
• Take account of the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries.
• Identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including: international, national and local sites of importance for biodiversity, and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation.
• Promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan. The Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan (Surrey Biodiversity Partnership, 2014) has recently been reviewed and the document Biodiversity and Planning in Surrey identifies the following habitats of relevance to Spelthorne:
• Lowland heathland; • Lowland dry acid grassland; • Lowland calcareous grassland; • Lowland meadows; • Woodlands (including traditional orchards);
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 76 August 2018 • Wetlands (including rivers, ponds and standing waters); • Hedgerows; • Open mosaic habitats; and • Arable field margins. Spelthorne Local Plan The Spelthorne Local Plan expired in 2007. However the following saved policies which relate to nature conservation (updated 2009) are of relevance:
• POLICY RU11 – SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE -The Borough Council will safeguard Sites of Nature Conservation Importance as shown on the Proposals Map and will only permit development proposals within these sites, where there will be no adverse effect, either directly or indirectly on their ecological interest, or where the requirements of Policy RU14 are met. The Council, in consultation with the Surrey Wildlife Trust, will keep under review the Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and will seek to protect such sites following their selection on a County-wide basis by the Surrey Nature Conservation Liaison Group.
• POLICY RU14 – SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE - Where a development proposal would destroy or damage the nature conservation interest of a site, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the decrease in the nature conservation value of the site, that any such decrease has been kept to a minimum, that mitigation or compensation to provide for species protection and/or habitat creation or enhancement has been made within the area, and that appropriate measures to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation have been established.
Bats All British species of bat are listed on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Schedule 5. It is an offence to deliberately kill, damage, take (Section 9(1)) a bat; to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it occupies a place of shelter or protection (Section 9(4)(b)); or to deliberately or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a bat roost (Section 9(4)(c)). Given the strict nature of these offences, there is an obligation on the developer and owner of a site to consider the presence of bats. All British bats are listed on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Schedule 2. Regulation 41 strengthens the protection of bats under the 1981 Act against deliberate capture or killing (Regulation 41(1) (a)), deliberate disturbance (Regulation 41(1) (b))21 and damage or destruction of a resting place (Regulation 41(1) (d)). A bat roost is defined as any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection, irrespective of whether or not bats are resident. Buildings and trees may be used by bats for a number of different purposes throughout the year including resting, sleeping, breeding, raising young and hibernating. Use depends on bat age, sex, condition and species as well as the external factors of season and weather conditions. A roost used during one season is therefore protected throughout the year and any proposed works that may result in disturbance to bats, and loss, obstruction of or damage to a roost are licensable.
Application for a Natural England EPS Licence Development works that may cause killing or injury of bats or that would result in the damage, loss or disturbance of a bat roost would require a Natural England (NE) Bat Mitigation Licence. For a Mitigation licence to be granted three tests must be met. Evidence is needed to determine these three tests: whether there is a need for the development which justifies the impact on the European Protected Species (EPS); whether there is an alternative which would avoid the impact and need for an EPS licence; and whether mitigation proposed is sufficient to maintain the conservation status of the EPS in question. A Mitigation Licence application will generally only be considered by NE on receipt of planning consent, and once any pre-commencement conditions of relevance to ecology have been discharged.
21 Relates specifically to deliberate disturbance in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect i) the ability of any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young or ii) the local distribution of that species.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 77 August 2018 There are two licensing routes now available for bats, which comprise: Full NE England EPS Mitigation Licence:
• NE aim to determine the application within six weeks (although this can take longer). • The application comprises three components including an application form (broad details of the applicant, site and proposals); a detailed Method Statement providing the survey methods and findings, impact assessment and mitigation measures (including detailed maps and schedule of works); and a Reasoned Statement outlining the „need‟ for the development and consideration of alternatives. NE Low Impact Class Licence
• This new route provides an alternative, quicker route (with a much reduced application form, and a target of 10 days to determine an application).
• This Low Impact Class Licence is only available to Registered Consultants identified by NE. • This is available for sites which support up to three low status roosts (day roosts, night roosts, feeding roosts and transitional roosts) of a maximum of three common species. The common species which can be covered by this licence include common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long eared, whiskered, Brandt’s, Daubenton's and Natterer's bat.
• All licensed works require evidence that there is a need for the development and that appropriate mitigation, including seasonal constraints and provision of alternative habitat and/or roosting structures is considered.
• Before Natural England can confirm the Site is registered and licensable works can commence, an assessment of the three tests must be undertaken by the Registered Consultant. Although this does not need to be submitted to NE, NE may subsequently undertake a review of the project and request to see all evidence as collected by the Consultant. This can only be undertaken following a survey and impact assessment which must be carried out in accordance with licence conditions and BCT survey guidelines.
• This licence cannot be used in relation to trees. Several species of bat, including brown long-eared and soprano pipistrelle are listed as species of principal importance under the NERC Act (2006). Section 41 of the Act is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.
Great Crested Newt GCN and their places of shelter are subject to the same level of protection as bats as a European Protected Species (see above).
Otter
Otter and their places of shelter are afforded the same level of protection as bats and GCN as a European Protected Species (see above).
Reptiles All UK reptiles and amphibians are legally protected from intentional and reckless killing and injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Water vole Water vole and their places of shelter are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This Act gives protection to water vole with regard to killing, injury and taking, and to their places of shelter with regard to obstructing, damaging and destruction.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 78 August 2018 Badger The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 provides specific protection for this species. Under this act it is an offence to take, kill or injure badgers or cause cruelty to badgers. It is also an offence to interfere with a badger sett (including digging for badgers, permitting dogs to enter a badger sett, obstructing the entrance to, or destroying a badger sett or disturbing a badger when it is occupying a sett); or to buy or offer for sale or otherwise possess a live badger. Works which may result in damage to a badger sett, or potential disturbance to badger using setts, must be undertaken under a Natural England licence.
Nesting Birds Birds and their nests are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This Act gives protection to all species of bird with regard to killing and injury, and to their nests and eggs with regard to taking, damaging and destruction. Certain species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act, are afforded additional protection against protection.
Plants Certain plants are protected against uprooting and sale by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition it is illegal to cause certain plants listed on schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to grow in the wild, or to plant them in the wild.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 79 August 2018 Appendix 3 Figures
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 80 August 2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS Figure 1.1: Phase 1 Habitat 10 IS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS Map .! IS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Survey boundary IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .! Target note IS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS !!! River !!XXXXXXXXX AAAAAIS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS !! Tree line 11 !!!XXXXXXXXX AAA AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .!IS IS IS IS IS13 IS IS IS IS!! ISXXXXXXXXX IS IS IS IS IS Arable !!!XXXXXXXXX AAA AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.! !!!!Bare ground IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISXXXXXXXXX IS12 IS IS IS IS ! AAA!!!! AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXXXXXXXXX. Broadleaved woodland AAAAAIS IS ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS ISXXXXXXXXX IS IS IS IS IS (plantation) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXX Broadleaved woodland (semi- AAAAAIS IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS14 IS IS IS IS IS IS IS .! XXXXXXXXX natural) AAAAAIS IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!26 Built-up areas XXXX 1 AAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.! IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS XXXXEphemeral/short perennial .! AAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII XXXXImproved grassland ISXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IIII AAAAAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 27 IIIIMarginal AAAAAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2 .! Neutral grassland (semi- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS IS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII15 improved) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.! ISIS IS IS Neutral grassland / Other tall XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! herb and fern IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IS IS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Other tall herb and fern !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (ruderal) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! Parkland/scattered trees XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! XXXXScrub (scattered) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!24 18 XXXXScrub/ Neutral grassland/ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.! .! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Other tall herb and fern 5 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XX Scrub/ Other tall herb and !! ! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fern/ Trees
. ! XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!25 IS IS IS IS ! 16 17 .!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.! IS IS IS IS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .! .!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22 IS IS IS IS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 . !
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX! 23 !
.! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX20 ! .! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!21 Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,500 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0 250 500 E XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMetres Source: LUC CB:VG EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG1-1_r2_Phase1_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 2.1: Bat Roost Potential Assessment and Bat Survey
Site boundary (! Surveyor position Walking transect Bat roost potential (buildings) High (! (! Low (! B7 B34 Negligible (! Bat roost potential (trees) (! High B33 (! Low (! Negligible B40
Tr2 (! (! (!
B24 (! (! B14 (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! B3 (! Tr1 (!
(! (! B45 (! Map Scale @ A4: 1:3,000 (!
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG2-1_r2_BRP_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 2.2: Bat Survey Activity Transects
Site boundary Transect A Transect B Transect C Transect D Transect E Transect F
Map Scale @ A4: 1:9,000
0 250 500 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG2-2_r2_BatTransectRoutes_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
4 (! Figure 2.3: Location of Static Detectors 2016
Site boundary (! Static monitoring points
(!3
(!2
(!1
Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,500
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG2-3_r2_Static_Monitoring_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 2.4: Location of Roosts 2016
Site boundary Bat roost species
.! Brown Long-eared bat day roost .! Common Pipistrelle day roost .! Pipistrellus sp. day roost .! Soprano Pipistrelle day roost
Map Scale @ A4: 1:2,000
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG2-4_r2_Bat_Roosts_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 2.5: Bat Survey - Targeted Tree Assessment and Static Monitoring Locations 2018
22 (! Site boundary )" Static Monitoring Location Bat Roost Potential - Tree 25 23 (! (! (! BRP1 - High 24 (! (! BRP2 - Low
26 (! 27 (!
21 (! 20 (!
10 11 (! (! 13 (! 12 (! (! 14 17 15 (! )"1 (! (! 16 18 (!(! 19
2 1 (! (! 3 4 (! (! 5 (! 6 7 )"2 (! (! 9 (! 8 (!
Map Scale @A3: 1:3,200
0 200 400 E m Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB: EB:Goosen_V LUC 10363_FIG2-5_BRP_trees_2018 13/07/2018 Source: LUC Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 2.6: Bat survey of Laleham Nurseries 2018
(! Survey boundary B14 (! (! (! Surveyor position (! B3 Bat Roost Potential B4 (! (! (! B5 Confirmed
B2 – Soprano pipistrelle, B6 (! Common pipistrelle and B7 Brown long-eared transitional (! B8 and day roosts
B1 B2 B4 – Soprano pipistrelle day roosts (! (! B6 – Soprano and Common pipistrelle day roosts
B9 B7 – Soprano pipistrelle day roosts.
B12 Low B13 Negligible
B11
B10
Map Scale @ A4: 1:1,000
0 20 40 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG2-6_r2_Bat_Roosts_LalehamNurseries_A4L 16/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 3.1: Great Crested Newt Surveys
Site boundary Water body with GCN not present Water body with GCN present
Ditch 3
Ditch 1 Ditch 2
Settlement pond
Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,000
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG3-1_GCN_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 4.1: Otter and Water Vole Survey
Site boundary Survey area (! Camera trap position
(!
Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,000
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG4-1_r2_Otter_Survey_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.1: Black-headed Gull
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area (! Date of survey (! 06/05/2016
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.2: Bullfinch
Site boundary (! North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! (! 21/04/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! 12/05/2016
(! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.3: Dunnock
Site boundary
(! (! (! North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! (! (! (! (! (! 21/04/2016 (! (! 05/05/2016 (! (! (! 06/05/2016 (! (! (! (! (! (! 11/05/2016 (! (! 12/05/2016 (! 24/05/2016 (! (!(! (! (! (! (! 26/05/2016 (! 07/06/2016 (! (! 14/06/2016 (! (! (!(! (! (!
(! (! (!
(!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.4: Grey Wagtail
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! 12/05/2016 (! 24/05/2016
(!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.5: Greylag Goose
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.6: Hobby
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area (! Date of survey (! 07/06/2016
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.7: House Martin
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016
(!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.8: House Sparrow
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 06/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! 24/05/2016 (! 07/06/2016
(!
(!(! (!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.9: Kestrel
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.10: Kingfisher
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 12/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.11: Lapwing
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016
(! (! (!
(!
(! (! (! (! (! (!(! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.12: Lesser Spotted Woodpecker
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 21/04/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.13: Linnet
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area (! Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! (! 26/05/2016 (! 07/06/2016
(!(! (!
(! (! (! (! (!
(!(!(! (!
(! (! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.14: Little Ringed Plover
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 11/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.15: Mallard
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 21/04/2016 (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! 12/05/2016
(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.16: Meadow Pipit
Site boundary
North survey area (! South survey area Date of survey (! 11/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.17: Mistle Thrush
Site boundary (! North survey area (! (! South survey area Date of survey (! 21/04/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! (! 24/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016 (! 07/06/2016 (! (! (! 14/06/2016 (!
(!
(!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.18: Mute Swan
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 21/04/2016 (! 05/05/2016 (! 24/05/2016
(! (! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.19: Reed Bunting
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016
(!
(!(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.20: Shelduck
Site boundary
North survey area (! South survey area Date of survey ! (! ( 21/04/2016 (! 07/06/2016
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.21: Skylark
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! (! 05/05/2016 (! (! 11/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016 (! (! (! (! (! (! (!
(! (! (!
(! (! (! ! ( (! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.22: Song Thrush (! (! Site boundary
(! (! North survey area (! (! (! South survey area (! Date of survey (! (! 21/04/2016 (! (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! (! (! 11/05/2016 (! (! 12/05/2016 (! (! 24/05/2016 (!(! (! (!(!(! (! (! 26/05/2016 (! (! (! (! 07/06/2016 (! 14/06/2016 (! (! (! (!(! (!
(!(! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.23: Spotted Flycatcher
Site boundary (! (! North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 11/05/2016 (! 12/05/2016 (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.24: Starling
Site boundary (! (! North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! (! 21/04/2016 (! (! (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! (! 11/05/2016 (! 12/05/2016 (! (! 24/05/2016 (! 26/05/2016 (! (! (! 07/06/2016 (! (! (! (!
(!
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.25: Stock Dove
Site boundary (! (! (! North survey area (! South survey area (! Date of survey (! (! 21/04/2016 (! (! 05/05/2016 (! 06/05/2016 (! 11/05/2016 (! (! 12/05/2016 (! (! 24/05/2016 (! (! (! (! 07/06/2016
(! (! (!
(! (! (!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.26: Swift
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 05/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.27: Tawny Owl
Site boundary
North survey area South survey area Date of survey (! 16/05/2016
(!
Source: LUC
Map Scale @ A4: 1:10,000
0 150 300 E M Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIGX_r2_BirdSurvey_A4L 17/07/2018 Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.28: Notable Bird Survey (Summer 2016) -
Site boundary
Survey area
North survey area (! (! South survey area ") (! Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ") (! (Schedule 1) ") ") # Hobby (! ") (! (! (! ") ") * ") ") (! ") (! (! (! (! *# Kingfisher (! ") *# Little Ringed Plover (! *# ") (! Birds of Conservation Concern ") (! ") (! ")") (! (Red List) ") ") (! Grey Wagtail (! ") (! (!") (! (! House Sparrow ") ") ") ") (! Lapwing (! (! (! (! (!") (! ") (! ") (! !") (! Lesser Spotted Woodpecker ( ") (! (! Linnet ") ") (! (! (! Mistle Thrush (! (! (! ") ! !( (! (! ( ") ") (! Skylark ") (! ") (! (! !")! ") (! (! ")(")")(!( (! (! (! (!(! ") (! (! (! Song Thrush ") (! ") (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! Spotted Flycatcher (! *#") (! (! Starling (! ! ") ") (! ( ") Birds of Conservation Concern (! (! (! ! (Amber List) (! ( (! (! ") ") Black-headed Gull (! (! (! (! (! ") Bullfinch (! ") ") (! (! (!(! ") Dunnock (! ") ") (! (! (! ") ") Greylag Goose (! (! (! (! (! ") ") House Martin ") (! ") (! ") ") ") ") (! ! (! ") Kestrel (! (! ") ( (! (! (! ") ") (! (! ") ") Kingfisher ") (! (!")(! ") *# (! ") Mallard ") ") (! ") ") (! ") ") (! ") Meadow Pipit (!(! ") (! (! (! (!") (! (! (! ") (! ") ") Mute Swan ") ") Reed Bunting
") Shelduck ") (! ")") (!(! (! ") Stock Dove (! ") Swift ") ") Tawny Owl
Map Scale @ A3: 1:6,500
0 150 300 E Metres Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIG5-28_r2_NotableBirdSightings_A3L 17/07/2018 Source: LUC Shepperton Masterplan - Breeding Bird Survey
Figure 5.29: All Bird Sightings (Summer 2016)
Site boundary )"(! (! (!(!(! (! (! )" North survey area (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!(! (!(!(!(!! (! (! South survey area ( (! (! ! (! (!(! (!)" )" (! (!(! (!(! ( (! (! )" (! (! (! !(! )" (!(!(! (! (!(! (! ((! (!(!(!(! )" Notable bird ** )" (!!(! )" (!(! (! )" )" )" )"!((! (! (! (! (! (! )" ( (! (! (!)"(!(!(!)"! (! )" )" )" (! (! )"(!(!((!(! (! Other bird (! )" "(!(!(!(!)"( (!)" (! (! (! ) (! (! (! (!)"(!(!(! )" (! (!(!(!(!(! (!(!)" " (! (! (!(! (!(! (! ) (! (! !(! (! (! (! (! )" )" (!(! )" (! )"(! )"(! (! (! )"(!(!(! )" (! )"(!)"!(! )"(!(! (! (! (! (!(! ()"(! (!(! (! (! )" )" (! (! (!(!(!)"(! (! " (!(! (! ) )"(! (!(!)" )"(! (!(!! (! " (!)"(!( (! (! (! ) (! (! )"(! )" (! (! ! (! )" )" "!(! ( (! )" )" (! (!(!)"(!(! (! )"(! (! )"(! (!(!)" (!)" (! (!(!(! (! (!(! (!(! (! )" (! )"(!(!)"(! (! (! (! (! )" (! (!(! )" (!(! (!(!(! (!(! ! ! (! (!(!)" )" (!(! (!(!( (! !(! )" (! (! (! (! ( (!(! (! )" (!(! )" )"! (! (! (!(! (! )" (!(!(!((!)" )"(! (! )" (! (!(!)" (! (!(! (! (! )" (!(! (! )" )" (!! )" )" )" (!)" (!(!)"(! (!)"(!(! (!()" ! )"!)"!)"(!(!)"(! )" " (! (!")")" )" (! (!)" (()"(!(! (!(!! (! ) )" )" )" (! )" (!(!)"(! (!(!(!)"(!( (! )" (! (!)" (! )" )" )" (! )" (!(! (! )" (! (! (! )" (! )" (!(!(!!(! (!!(! (! )" ((!(!(! ((! )" (!)"(!(!(!(!(! (! )" (! (! (! (! )" (! (!(!(!(! !)"(! )" (! )" (! (! ( (!!(! )"(! (!(!(!( (! )" )" (! (!(!(!(! )" )" )" (!(! )" )" (!(! (! (!(! (! )" (! !(! (! (! (! (! (! (!((! (!(! )" (! )" (! )"(!(! (! )" )" )" (! (! (!(! (!(!)"(! (! (! (! (! (!(! " (! (!(! (! (!) (! (! (! (!(!(!(! )"(! (! (! )" )" (!(!(!(!)"(!)" )" (!(!(!(! (! (! )" (!)"(! (! )" )" )" )"(!(! !(! " )" (! ((! (! ) (! (! (!(!(! )" )" (! (! (! (! ! )" )" (! !((! (! (! (!)" (! (!(! ( )" )" )" (! (! )" )"(! )" (! )" (! )" (! )" (!(! (! (! (! )" )" (!(! (! )"(!(!(! (! )" )" )"(!(!(!(! (! ! )" (! (! )" (! )" (! ( )"(! )"(!)" (!(!)"(! (!(! (! (! (! (!(!(!(! (! (!(! )" (! (!"(!)")" (!(! )" (!))"(!)"(! (! (! (! (!)"(! (! (! (! (! (!(!(! (! (! (! (!(!(! (!(!(!)")"(! (! (! (!(! )" (! )" (! )"(!(!(! )"(!(! (!(!(! (! (! (! (!(! )" (! (!)" ! (! (! (!(! )" (! ( (! (! (!(!!(! (!)" )")" )" )" (! (! )" (! (! ((! (! )"(! )"" (!(! (!! )"(! )" (! (!(! (!(! )"(!(! ) (! (! (! ( )" )"(!(! (! )" (!! (! ( (! )"(! (! (!(! (! (! (! (!(! Note (!(! )" )" (! (! ** Birds included in the Wildlife and (! )"(!)" (! Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 1) or Birds )")" )"(! )"(! of Conservation Concern (Red or Amber List). (! (!)"
Map Scale @ A3: 1:6,500
0 150 300 E Metres Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:EL EB:Goosen_V LUCEDI 6754_FIG5-29_r2_AllBirds_A3L 17/07/2018 Source: LUC Shepperton Masterplan - Ecology
Figure 6.1: Reptile Survey
") Site boundary ") ") Survey area ") ") ") Reptile refugia ") ") (! Grass snake ") C ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")(!") (! ")
") ") ") ") (!") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") A ") ") ")
") ") ") ") ") ")
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") B") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,000
0 100 200 E Metres Source: LUC CB:KS EB:Goosen_V LUCBRI 6754_FIG6-1_r2_Refugia_and_Reptiles_A4L 12/07/2018 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Appendix 4 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Target Notes
Target Note March 2016 - Comment
1 Extensive arable fields of low ecological value, although Skylark noted singing and likely to support one or more nesting pairs.
2 Mosaic of bramble scrub and ephemeral vegetation with much bare ground. Several linnet noted in the bramble.
3 An area of wet ephemeral ground with scattered scrub starting to emerge but primarily ephemeral vegetation characteristic of disturbed ground. Several large puddles have attracted bird species including several mallard and a few lapwing.
4 A mosaic of scattered scrub, tall ruderal vegetation and rank grassland along much of the large earth bund which runs along the southern edge of the Site. The grassland is dominated by cocks-foot Dactylis glomerata and supports a dense tussocky sward capable of supporting reptiles. May also provide opportunities for sheltering badger and GCN.
5 Balancing pond forms part of active mineral extraction site. No aquatic vegetation and recent and regular disturbance has resulted in low ecological value.
6 Several wet ditches within arable fields. Holding water in pockets during the survey but shallow nature means the may be ephemeral. Where water occurs it extends to top level of surrounding earth and therefore low suitability for water vole due to flood risk. Dry areas support dense linear bramble scrub and northern 1/3rd of two northernmost ditches support a line of dense willow scrub.
7 A mosaic of woodland, scattered trees and scrub, dense scrub and ruderal vegetation at the western edge of the arable fields. The vegetation includes abundant elder Sambucus nigra and common nettle Urtica dioica indicating high levels of nutrient enrichment and associated with high levels of soil disturbance from rabbit activity.
8 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland in the west of the Site supports a variety of species including oak Quercus robur, ash Fraxinus excelsior, field maple Acer campestre, and cherry Prunus avium with an understorey dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. Young age, density and structure of growth indicate that this woodland is likely to have been planted relatively recently.
9 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland dominated by mature oak.
10 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland which supports a mature high canopy including abundant oak, ash, crack willow Salix fragilis and poplar Populus sp., and occasional aspen Populus tremula, cherry, in addition to a dense understorey comprising abundant hawthorn, bramble and blackthorn Prunus spinosa.
11 River Ash – open area without tree cover has enabled a pocket of dense riparian vegetation including common reed Phragmites australis and sedge carex sp. To dominate. Likely to support a range of wetland emergent and marginal species but could not be easily accessed due to dense beds of common nettle along borders.
12 (note target note updated during June 2016) Semi-improved neutral grassland to
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 81 August 2018 Target Note March 2016 - Comment
the west of the overflow car park in the northern backlot. Comprised a waist high dense sward dominated by cock’s-foot and false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, frequent yarrow Achillea millefolium, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata and tufted vetch Vicia cracca, occasional lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, goats beard Tragopogon pratensis, common sorrel Rumex acetosa, curled dock Rumex crispus, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis, field speedwell Veronica persica, hogweed Heracleum spondylium, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, a geranium sp., a vetch Vicia sp., locally abundant species included a meadowgrass Poa sp. And Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus.
13 (Note target note updated during June 2016) North west grassland. A sheep grazed field comprising semi-improved neutral grassland. South part of field dominated by fine grasses including sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum. Yorkshire fog is abundant but is lower in sward and does not prevent from ‘fine’ grassland appearance. Locally abundant soft brome Bromus erectus, meadow foxtail and doves-foot cranesbill Geranium molle, also present. Abundant species include meadow buttercup, mouse ear chickweed Cerastium fontanum, frequent common sorrel, meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis, curled dock, creeping thistle, germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Occasional dandelion, ragwort Senecio vulgaris, field wood rush Luzula campestre. Locally abundant patches of short sward sedge Carex sp. along southernmost edge of field represent marshy grassland but below MMU. Within the northern part of this field, the diversity of herbs and presence of fine grasses is greatly reduced and species indicative of improvement include creeping thistle, ragwort and perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne become abundant.
14 Linear woodland dominated by mature oak trees, with a dense understorey comprising abundant hawthorn, elder and blackthorn, frequent dog rose Rosa canina, holly Ilex aquifolium and bramble.
15 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland forming an extensive linear corridor along the River Ash. The woodland is predominantly dominated by mature oak, with ash also abundant and locally abundant horse chestnut Aesculus hipposcastanum. Crack willow is also an abundant feature of the canopy along the riparian zone where its habitat of dropping branches has created a dense tangle of vegetation along sections of the waterway. The understorey is dominated by bramble, hawthorn, blackthorn and elder and also includes locally abundant yew Taxus baccata. Ivy is a constant feature throughout and cloaks many of the trees. Riparian sections also include abundant willow Salix sp. scrub. The riparian zone is relatively devoid of vegetation in most parts on account of overshading or deep water in the vicinity of openings, but several clearings support a range of aquatic plants including areas dominated by common reed and sedges.
16 Otter spraint – several old spraints located on southern ledge underneath footbridge over River Ash which connects the main studio with the backlots to the south.
17 Woodland clearing adjacent to footpath and studios comprising a mosaic of semi- improved neutral grassland dominated by cock’s-foot and scattered scrub dominated by elder.
18 Film studios comprise numerous large warehouses, areas of hardstanding and various buildings, all of which represent low ecological value. Many of the brick built buildings are likely to provide bat roost potential but the suitability is greatly reduced by extensive night lighting, high levels of disturbance, and a lack of vegetation suitable for foraging.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 82 August 2018 Target Note March 2016 - Comment
19 Bare earth as a result of recent site working
20 As per target note 19.
21 Large earth bund around the southeast and southern boundary of the Site supports a mosaic of tall ruderal vegetation, dense scrub dominated by elder with occasional scattered trees.
22 Derelict building with no access. Appears to have low bat roost potential with no obvious features identified, albeit direct access not available.
23 Collection of open sided buildings built to resemble ‘wild west’ scene. Several features identified with high potential to support roosting bats.
24 Active film set – access not available but appears to support disturbed ground
25 Laleham nurseries – survey access not available but a collection of barns and buildings present with high bat roost potential and may also offer opportunities for barn owl. Largely surrounding by a screen of Leyland cypress Leyandii sp. And ornamental laurel hedging.
26 Temporary car park on floating road surface.
27 Permanent car park under construction at time of survey.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 83 August 2018 Appendix 5 - Bat Survey Data
2016 Emergence/Re-entry Surveys
B3 Survey Survey Survey Cloud Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 18°C. Warm evening with a 06/07/2016 21.03 22.48 N/A 21.18 1 7 0 light breeze 03/08/2016 20.29 22.14 N/A 20.44 3 2 0 19°C, breezy, warm, dry 18/08/2016 4.20 6.05 5.50 N/A 1 1 0 14°C, warm, light breeze, dry
Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments
RT Duet/Ex07 Rooftop East 22.41 Noctule 1 NS C/F South-East Soprano Faint pass heard on bat CB Duet/Ex05 Corner 22.47 Pipistrelle 1 NS C/F box (South of me?) Heard very briefly, from distance, possible 22.24 Noctule 1 NS C/F passing only BN Duet/Ex04 East Side 22.42 Noctule 1 NS C/F Pass Soprano 06/07/2016 22.47 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Foraging pass Common 22.22 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Distant pass, very brief North-East Too many floodlights to SS Duet/Ex06 Corner 22.41 Noctule 1 NS F see anything Soprano Couple of passes but not 22.46 Pipistrelle 1 NS F seen. Brief foraging. Rooftop 22.37 Noctule 1 NS C Fairly close, 1 pass KL Duet/Ex03 West 22.39 Noctule 1 NS F 3 passes NB Duet/Ex08 South Side 22.22 ? 1 NS ? Brief Pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 84 August 2018 22.41 Noctule 1 NS ? Passing over high? Flew from north-west. Foraging south of building along tree-line 21.15 Noctule 2 S F by carpark. SS Echo/EX06 East side 21.38 Noctule 1 S F Same position as before Likely same foraging 21.43 Noctule 1 NS F location as before 21.57 Noctule 1 NS F As before Appeared at window/ tree canopy height. Common Possibly an emergence - 21.06 C.Pip pipistrelle 1 S E? see diagram on map. Continuously foraging BN BL/EX04 South side along the tree-lines as well as above the car 03/08/2016 park, along Site 21.18 Noctule Leisler 2 S F boundary Possibly foraging along 21.38 Noctule Leisler 1 NS F trees and Site boundary NB Duet/EX07 North side No bat activity Flew from the east and then circled. Bats flew Rooftop CB Duet/EX02 over house and started West 21.15 - foraging over lawn area 21.28 Noctules 4 S C/F and above house Foraging continuously over houses to the east, KL Duet/EX05 Rooftop East 21.15 - 4 or the car park and River 21.22 Noctules more S F Ash corridor. 21.26 Noctule 1 S F Foraging over River Ash Rooftop CB Duet/EX02 West 4.52 Noctule 1 NS C? Fairly brief pass. 4.47 Noctule 1 NS C One pass KL Duet/EX07 Rooftop East 17/08/2016 4.52 Noctule 1 NS C One pass Passed briefly from a BN BL/EX05 South side 4.44 Noctule 1 NS C distance 4.47 Noctule 1 NS C Passed nearby
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 85 August 2018 Between left window frame and wall above the main door on the Common southern aspect. See 4.48 pipstrelle 1 S R drawing for entry point 5.02 Noctule 1 NS F Passing/ foraging nearby JS Duet/EX04 East side 4.53 ? 1 NS Brief call Common Came close for a short NB Duet/EX06 North side 4.55 pipstrelle 1 NS C/F while but couldn't see it
B7 Survey Survey Survey Cloud Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 07/07/2016 3.23 5.08 4.53 N/A 1 7 0 14°C. Warm, still, dry. 19°C. Mild, clear sky, slight 14/07/2016 21.00 22.45 N/A 21.15 1 2 0 breeze 16/08/2016 20.05 21.50 N/A 20.20 2 0 0 18°C, light breeze, warm, dry
Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Circled several times. Flew South up and touched the house Eastern where the soffit meets the Corner & KL Duet/Ex03 brickwork on the north- North eastern corner of the 07/07/2016 Eastern Soprano C/R house. Circled again and Corner 4.38 Pipistrelle 1 S behaviour then flew away northward North BN Duet/Ex04 Western Corner 3.42 Noctule 1 NS C/F Brief pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 86 August 2018 Flew S -> NE. Bat observed flying towards building from South side (seemed West CB Duet/Ex05 to go towards East end Corner gable?) then back along Soprano C/ R south side of building 4.35 Pipistrelle (?) 1 S behaviour (roadside). (Same as KL) Flew South to North. Circled around front of South gable ends and flew on CB Duet/Ex04 Eastern Soprano past the house (1) on map. Corner 22.04 Pipistrelle 1 S C Flew past BN? Soprano Faint pass heard on bat 22.44 Pipistrelle 1 NS C box North KL Duet/Ex01 Eastern Soprano Corner 22.04 Pipistrelle 1 NS C CB and NB saw it 21.59 Noctule/Leisler 1 NS F/C Foraging pass 14/07/2016 22.02 Noctule 1 NS F Foraging pass Soprano 22.02 Pipistrelle 1 NS F Brief pass West BN Duet/Ex07 Soprano Flew from West to East Corner 22.08 Pipistrelle 1 S F across the house front 22.10 Noctule 1 NS F/C Foraging pass Soprano 22.39 Pipistrelle 1 NS F Brief foraging pass 22.42 Noctule 1 NS F/C North NB Duet/Ex05 Western Soprano Corner 22.17 Pipistrelle ? NS ? Short pulses and quiet West 20.57 Noctule 1 NS C One pass KL Duet/EX07 Corner 21.31 Noctule 1 NS F/C V fast hawking sounds Passed along the eastern edge of the Site, going 16/08/2016 North north. Seen flying quite low Duet/BL & BN Eastern Soprano and feeding for a few EX05 Corner 20.48 pipistrelle 1 S F seconds along the building
20.57 Noctule 1 NS C Heard passing nearby
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 87 August 2018 21.09 Noctule 1 NS C Passed briefly Leisler 21.31 (25kHz) 1 NS C/F Sounded very close by North CB Duet/EX02 Western Corner 21.31 Noctule 1 NS C? Brief pass Soprano 2 passes close by. Flew 20.48 pipistrelle? 1 S F north
South NB Duet/EX06 Eastern Corner
20.52 - Soprano Possibly from direction of 20.54 pipistrelle 1 S F/C buiding but too dark to see
B14
Survey Cloud Survey Date Start Survey End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 13˚C, Cool, dry, 28/06/2016 03:18 05:03 04:48 N/A 1 3 0 calm night. 15°C. Warm, still, calm, slightly 07/07/2016 21.03 22.48 N/A 21.18 2 6 0 overcast 19°C, dry ground, humid, light 04/08/2016 20.28 22.13 N/A 10:19 2 6 0 breeze
Species Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from from No. seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments
CB Express 01 No activity 28/06/2016 RT Express 04 No activity MB SD2 No activity
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 88 August 2018 KL Express 05 No activity
BN Express 03 No activity
NB Express 08 No activity NB Express 03 East Side No activity Duet/SD2_02 KL (error signal North Side throughout) No activity South 07/07/2016 SS Express 08 Side 22.34 Noctule 1 NS F Distant and brief pass 22.12 Noctule 1 NS C Heard briefly BN Express 06 West Side 22.34 Noctule 1 NS C Close pass South- CB SD2_01 Soprano Flew East to West. Bat East Side 22.45 Pipistrelle 1 S C passed by the building 21.25 Noctule 1 NS C Distant pass South- Flew East to West CB Duet/Ex04 Eastern Soprano between the buildings Corner 22.04 Pipistrelle 1 S C (shown on map) Soprano Heard a couple of brief 22.10 Pipistrelle 1 NS C passes North- Duet/Ex08 Western Common NB Corner 22.11 Pipistrelle 1 NS F Brief pass, twice
04/08/2016 21.08 ? 1 NS ? Brief, faint, distant pass South- 21.48 ? 1 NS ? Few passes RG Duet/Ex01 Western Soprano Corner 22.05 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass 22.08 - 22.09 Pipistrelle 2+ NS C Couple of passes Soprano Brief foraging activity South 21.47 Pipistrelle 1 NS F close by SS Duet/Ex02 Side 21.51 Noctule 1 NS F Quick pass 21.58 Noctule 1 NS F Distant and brief pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 89 August 2018 Soprano 22.04 Pipistrelle 1 S F 1 on map Soprano 22.08 Pipistrelle 1 S F 1 on map Distant, heard briefly 21.22 Noctule 1 NS F passing or foraging nearby Eastern Soprano Brief pass. Not seen when BN Duet/Ex03 Side 21.57 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C looking at building Common 22.11 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass
B24
Survey Cloud Survey Date Start Survey End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 10 ˚C, Clear, 26/05/2016 3.26 5.11 4.56 N/A 0 2 0 calm, cool night 12˚C, dry night after a wet and windy day. Light rain and wind 01/06/2016 3.19 5.04 4.49 N/A 3 8 0 during survey. 17°C. Cool, clear evening. Dry 05/07/2016 21.04 22.49 N/A 21.19 1 1 0 ground. 14/07/2016 20.54 22.39 N/A 21.09 0 0 0 14°C, Mild, fresh
Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments West side of Korda Common 26/05/2016 AC SD2 2 Theatre 3.51 Pipistrelle 1 NS F East side of Korda 26/05/2016 DG SD2 1 Theatre No bat activity Not 01/06/2016 LR Ex 09 recorded No bat activity
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 90 August 2018 Common Possibly along buidling West side 22.00 Pipistrelle 1 NS C beind me 05/07/2016 SS Duet/Ex04 of Korda Soprano Theatre 22.30 Pipistrelle 1 NS C 22.31 Noctule 1 NS C East side 05/07/2016 of Korda NB Duet/Ex06 Theatre No bat activity Flew south. Flew across Common from behind trees towards 21.50 pipistrelle 1 S C river. 14/07/2016 22.12 ? 1 NS C Very faint, barely heard East side Seen from in front of the of Korda Soprano treesto the north, flying AC Ex 02 Theatre 22.28 pipistrelle 1 S F/C south towards river
B33 and B34
Survey Survey Survey Cloud Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 15°C. Calm, clear, dry 07/07/2016 3.23 5.08 4.53 N/A 1 7 0 ground. No dew
Species Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from from seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Walking survey of 2 low potential buildings. No bat activity 07/07/2016 SS Duet/Ex06 See map recorded
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 91 August 2018
B40 and Tree 2 Survey Survey Cloud Survey Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather Damp, breezy, 03/08/2016 3.58 5.43 5.28 N/A 1-2 7 0 cloudy 16˚C, Mild, still night after hot day. Very light drizzle between 18/08/2016 4.20 6.05 5.50 N/A 0 8 0-1 04.48 and 05.00 20°C, mild, 22/08/2016 19.53 21.38 N/A 20.08 1 0 0 warm, dry.
Species Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from from seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Feeding heard, possibly behind CB and IR Express Soprano tree 2 to the 03/08/2016 Camera 04 Theatre 1 4.31 pipistrelle? 1 NS F south
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 92 August 2018 Bat circled above me and I lost sight of it in the trees. It seemed to return to a roost in the London Plane tree, adjacent to Soprano Tree 2, but can't Tree 2 5.03 pipistrelle? 1 S R? be sure. Tree 2 4.48 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass Common 1 pass with 4.5 Pipistrelle 1 S C social calling Express 4.56 Noctule 1 NS C Brief pass 18/08/2016 KL 04 5.06 Noctule 1 NS C Brief pass distant Brief Express Theatre 1 RG 4.57 Noctule 1 NS C pass 05 5.07 Noctule 1 NS C Brief pass Appeared from SE corner of Theatre 1 and KL N/A Theatre 1 22/08/2016 flew south-east. Soprano (see diagram/ 20:28 pipistrelle 1 S E aerial). NB N/A Tree 2 No activity
B45
Survey Cloud Survey Date Start Survey End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather 13°C. Clear, mild, 01/06/2016 3.19 5.04 4.49 N/A 3 8 0 slightly breezy 18°C. Dry, mild and 05/07/2016 21.04 22.49 N/A 21.49 1 3 0 clear 16˚C, Mild, still night after hot day. Very light drizzle between 04.48 18/08/2016 4.20 6.05 5.50 N/A 0 8 0-1 and 05.00
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 93 August 2018
Species Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from from No. seen Type Date Surveyor Detector Location Observed Sonogram observation bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments
Soprano Flurry of bat activity in the 3.35 Pipistrelle 1+ NS F/C woodland behind me Common Flurry of bat activity in the 3.41 Pipistrelle ? NS F/C woodland behind me Soprano 3.49 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass Common 3.51 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass Soprano 3.54 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass 3.55 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass 3.59 Pipistrelle 2 NS C Both very faint and brief North- Soprano Duet/ 01/06/2016 RG West 4.00 Pipistrelle 1 NS C Both very faint and brief Ex01 Corner Common Stronger echolocation, 4.02 Pipistrelle 1 NS C pass Common 4.07 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass Soprano 4.17 Pipistrelle 1+ NS F/C 2 brief passes Soprano Was circling near my 4.26 - 4.28 Pipistrelle 1 NS F pos ition. Feeding buzzes Soprano 4.30 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass Soprano 4.32 Pipistrelle 2 NS F/C Brief pass Common 4.35 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 94 August 2018 Caught a glimpse of it flying through canopy towards me, could hear it clearly on the duet. Flew under a tree just behind the sheds. Flew under tree then stopped echolocating (Birch tree?). Slight clearing round the back of the building. Fence separates sheds from river. Looking into the clearing from behind the sheds, it is to the north- west within the clearing. Metal pole can be used as a reference point too that 4.35 Pipistrelle 1 S C/R is along the fence line. 3.27 Pip45 NS
3.28-03.36 Pip45 2+ NS F Feeding buzzes. Bat activity behind surveyor potentially in the South- 3.42 Pip45 NS F tree. CB Ex 3 east 3.55 Pip45 1 NS C? Brief pass over field. corner Bat circled in front of 4.31 BLE? 1 S R? building where it juts out. Bat entered under boarding/slats next to 4.38 BLE? 1 S R hatch/first floor door.
Occasional foraging passes 03.19-3.55 Pip55 NS F in and out of range.
Swarming near building KL Ex 4 South and then returned to roost under wooden cladding on left of window frame 4.39 BLE 1 S R (Same sighting as CB).
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 95 August 2018 Regular bat activity from 3.19-3.39 Pip NS C/F direction of woodland. 3.47 Pip NS C Brief pass. Brief activity from direction 3.51 Pip55 NS C/F of woodland. South- RT Ex 7 west 3.58 Pip NS F Faint call from woodland. 4.02 Pip55 NS C Regular pip activity from the start of the survey until 4.10 in woodland. No bat passes or re-entries near woodland. Picked up something very 21.47 ? ? NS briefly Flew East to West. Bat appeared from corner where buildings meet (1 on Soprano map). Could have come 21.50 Pipistrelle 1 S E/C from over rooftop though. Flew East to West. Bat flew Soprano out through window on 21.54 Pipistrelle 1 S E/F building front. Bats foraging in front of South- me, into corner where 1st 05/07/2016 CB Duet/Ex07 east Soprano bat seen, circling in front corner 21.56 Pipistrelle 2 S F of buildings. Several bats foraging continuously along front of 22.03 ? ? S F building 22.05 - Soprano Flying along the front of 22.12 Pipistrelle 3+ S F the buildings. Flew West to East. Bats circling and foraging to 22.18 - Soprano west side and in front of 22.27 Pipistrelle 1 S F the building. Fox came out under 21.45 building. Marked x on map.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 96 August 2018 Flew over building into ? Possible woodland. 1 bat possibly 21.38 BLE 1 S E emerged/dropped out Heard briefly, not seen Soprano when looking at the 21.43 Pipistrelle 1 NS F building Seen above the building, Common foraging along the 21.51 Pipistrelle 1 S F woodland edge Soprano 21.53 Pipistrelle 1 NS F Possibly foraging nearby Pass, from west going Soprano east, flew past the front of 21.57 Pipistrelle 1 S F the building. Soprano BN Duet/Ex08 South 21.58 Pipistrelle 1 S F 22.01 Leisler 1 NS C/F Pass Continuously foraging 22.05 - Soprano along the front of the 22.11 Pipistrelle 3 S F building Soprano 22.21 Pipistrelle 1 NS F Possibly foraging nearby Soprano Seen pass towards the 22.25 Pipistrelle 1 S F woodland Pass not seen, around 22.26 ? 1 NS F 38kHz Heard briefly, not seen Common when looking at the 22.34 Pipistrelle 1 NS F building Common 22.42 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Possibly foraging nearby Brown Long- 21.55 Eared (?) 1 NS C 2 passes v.quiet Brown Long- South- 21.56 Eared (?) 1 NS C/F 1 pass v.quiet KL Duet/Ex05 West corner 22.01 Noctule 1 NS C/F Fairly close, 1 pass Picking up occassional 22.02 - Common quiet passes from 22.08 Pipistrelle 2 NS F woodland
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 97 August 2018 Common Pipistrelle + Soprano 22.09 Pipistrelle 1 S F Circling around woodland 22.11 - Common 22.12 Pipistrelle 1 NS F " " Soprano 22.17 Pipistrelle 1 NS F " " Occasional pip passes until survey end North- RG Pettersson West Lots of pip45/55 foraging /Ex03 Corner in woodland behind me Flew south-north high over 5.11 Noctule 1 S C building Flew east-west over South- 5.11 BLE/pip 1 S C buiilding east RT corner Entered under wooden Pettersson cladding on south aspect of /Ex02 building - to the east of previous return. Not 5.36 BLE/pip 1 s R echolocating. South- west common Batbox corner 4.43 pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass. common 4.55 pipistrelle 1 NS C Brief pass. Flew over roof of building LR from north to enter roost pipistrelle under boarding above (not window with curtains (to echolocating. the east of previously
Species recorded roost). Flight fast judged by and erratic. Entered behaviour/fli crevice roost between 5.36 ght pattern) 1 S R boarding and walls. north- Express west 4.55 Pip55 1 NS C Very brief pass 06 corner 18/08/2016 NB 4.59 Noctule 1 NS C Brief pass.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 98 August 2018 2016 Bat Activity Surveys
Activity Transect Data Weather and Timings for All Transects Survey Survey Cloud Survey Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather
11˚C, Cool, dry and cloudy 18/04/2016 19:45 22:04 N/A 20:04 3 7 0 after a slightly breezy day. 18˚C, Rain before survey. There was a slight breeze, warm, with some rain during 09/05/2016 20:20 22:37 N/A 20:37 2 6 2 to 3 the survey.
16/05/2016 20:34 22:34 N/A 20:49 1 0 0 16˚C, calm, clear, still, mild 15˚C, Mild evening with a moderate breeze and heavy rain during the survey. 29/06/2016 21:06 22:14 N/A 21:21 5 4 4 SURVEY CANCELLED
17˚C, Warm, dry evening with 30/06/2016 21:06 23:21 N/A 21:21 3 5 0 a slight breeze. 18°C, warm, calm, clear, wet 11/07/2016 21:00 23:15 N/A 21:15 1 1 0 ground 20°C, gusty wind, warm, wet 02/08/2016 20:31 22:46 N/A 20:46 4 8 0 ground 18°C, light - moderate breeze, 03/08/2016 03:58 05:43 05:28 N/A 4 8 0 wet ground
15/09/2016 18:59 21:14 N/A 19:14 3 7 0 16°C, dry ground, light breeze
04/10/2016 18.16 20.31 N/A 18.31 6 0 0 15°C, dry, gusty.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 99 August 2018
Transect A
Seen/not Activity Species recorded Observation Species from seen Type but not noted by Survey Date Surveyor Detector time observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor Travel of flight north- east. Very briefly seen near a very large lone tree in middle of the field with lots of 20:35 1 S F/C deadwood. Near north-eastern part 20:40 NS of wood. Travel of flight north- east at corner of 20:42 1 S F woodland. 20:43-20:44 2 S F Duet/ 20:45 1 S C 18/04/2016 AC Express 04 Travel of flight south- 21:05 1 S C east. Seen briefly. 21:08, 21:09 NS Constant. 21:14, 21:14 NS Constant. 21:18 NS 21:21 1 S F Circling. 21:24, 21:25 NS 21:32 NS 21:33, 21:34, 21:36, 21:37 NS 21:38 NS 21:43 NS Brief.
Noctule, common 29/06/2016 pipistrelle and CANCELLED soprano pipistrelle DUE TO RAIN RT Express 08 No activity. pass Transect A: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 100 August 2018 Row Labels Noctule Pip45 Pip55 Grand Total 18/04/2016 - Data lost 29/06/2016 1 2 1 4 29/06/2016 - survey stopped early due to heavy rain Grand Total 1 2 1 4
Transect B
Seen/not Activity Species recorded Observation Species from seen Type but not noted by Survey Date Surveyor Detector time observation** No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor 21:03 1 NS Several faint passes. Express Noctule, Nathusius 18/04/2016 LR #03 pipistrelle 21:19 Pip45 1 NS F Several faint passes. Transect B: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes Row Labels Nathusii Noctule Pip.sp. Grand Total 18/04/2016 2 1 1 4 Grand Total 2 1 1 4
Transect C
Species Seen/not Activity recorded but Observation Species from seen Type not noted by Survey Date Surveyor Detector time observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor
Duet/ 18/04/2016 RT Express 07 20:29 Pip sp 1 NS Brief, distant call.
Bat activity - foraging over Pip sp NS F river. Bat activity - foraging over 20:37 Pip55 S F river.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 101 August 2018 Pip actvity between points 7 and 8. 20:53 Pip(?) 1 NS C Brief pass. 20:56-20:58 Pip55 1 NS F/C 21:07 BLE(?) 1 NS C Brief, quiet call. 21:12 Pip55 2 NS C Pip55 NS F Constant activity. 21:29 Pip sp 1 C Brief pass. NS Faint calls. Pip45 1 NS C? Brief faint call. Pip45 and other sp? >1 NS Frequent bat activity Constant activity. Bats foraging in woodland and Pip55, Pip45 >2 NS F over river.
Activity between 2 and 1. Constant foraging in Pip55 NS F woodland adjacent to path. 21:25 2 passes from 2 bats
21:27 - 21:28 Lots of passes
21:35 - 21:38 Several passes
Duet/ 16/05/2016 DG 21:41 - 21:42 Several passes Express 2 22:10 1 pass 21:11 1 pass 21:22 2 passes 21:22 2 passes 22:24 A few passes 22:42 1 pass Myotis(?) 1 NS C Brief faint call. Circled underneath canopy Duet/ Pip55 1 S F of cypress tree. 29/06/2016 LR Express 9 Noctule NS C Brief faint pass. Circled along path under Pip55 1 S F tree canopy.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 102 August 2018 Regular pass in the Pip55 1 NS F canopy. 21:50 Pip55 1 NS F several passes 21:52 Pip55 2 NS F continuous over river 21:55 Pip55 1 NS F continuous over river 21:55 Pip45 1 NS F continuous over river 21:58 Pip55 2 NS F continuous over river 21:58 Noctule 1 NS F/C 3 passes 22:01 Pip55 2 NS F 22:14 Noctule 1 NS F/C 2 passes Duet/ 11/07/2016 KL Express 03 22:18 Noctule 1 NS F 2 passes 22:20 Noctule 1 NS F 22:23 Pip45 1 NS F 2 passes 22:36 Pip45 1 NS F 4 passes over the river Several passes, faint, possibly continuous foraging in/ out of range in 22:44 Pip45 1 NS F the woodland 22:46 Pip45 1 NS F Continuous as above Transect C: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes Row Labels Pip45 Pip55 Grand Total 18/04/2016 - Data lost 16/05/2016 9 13 22 11/07/2016 - Data lost Grand Total 9 13 22
Transect D
Species Seen/not Activity recorded but Observation Species from seen Type not noted by Survey Date Surveyor Detector time observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor Flew across the track and 2 Seen; 3 along the edge of Duet/ 20:58 - 21:00 Pip 5 Not Seen C/F woodland. 19/05/2016 RG Ex01 Flew across track and 21:10 Pip 2 1 S; 1 NS C/F along woodland boundary.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 103 August 2018 21:12 Pip 1 NS C 21:13 Pip 2 S C Flew along corridor. 21:30 Pip 1 NS C 22:03 Pip 1 NS C 22:16 Pip 1 NS C 22:33 Pip 1 NS C 21:32 Pip55 1 2 passes 21:51 Pip sp. 1 22:00 Pip55 1 F Several passes 22:04 Pip45 2
Duet/ 22:27 - 22:28 Pip45 F Several passes 30/06/2016 RG Ex07 22:29 - 22:31 Pip55 1 A few passes 23:16 Pip55 1 One pass 23:25 Pip55 1 One pass 23:32 Pip45 F Lots of passes 23:36 BLE 1 C One pass Transect D: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes Row Labels BLE Leislers Nyctalus Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Grand Total 09/05/2016 2 1 5 11 19 30/06/2016 1 2 8 8 19 Grand Total 1 2 1 2 13 19 38
Transect E
Species Seen/not Activity recorded but Observation Species from seen Type not noted by Survey Date Surveyor Detector time observation No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor 21:52 Pip45 1 Duet/ Pip45 and 09/05/2016 AC Express 2 22:22 Pip55 2 or more NS F several passes 22:26 Pip45 NS F Lots of activity Pip55 1? NS F? Four passes in total. Duet/ 30/06/2016 KL 21:36 Pip55 1 NS 1 pass Express 06 21:46 Pip55 C 1 pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 104 August 2018 Five passes at the corner 22:22 Pip 1 or 2 NS F of the field by pylon. 22:59 Pip 2 NS 3 passes Pip45 1 NS F Continuous foraging. Pip55 2 NS F Continuous foraging. Pip55 1 NS F 20:59 Noctule? 1 NS C far away semi-continuous, likely 21:02 Noctule 1 NS F over river corridor semi-continuous, likely 21:05 Noctule 1 NS F over river corridor Around tree-line/ river 21.10 Noctules 2 S F corridor 21.16 Noctule 1 NS F further away 20:19 Noctule 1 NS F fairly close Soprano pip or 21:22 nathusius 1 NS C brief still continuous foraging, in 21:24 Noctule 1 NS F and out of range Several passes aong tree- 21:32 Soprano pip 1 NS F line/ river Duet/ Several passes aong tree- Nathusius - 1 02/08/2016 KL Express 07 21:32 Noctule 1 NS F line/ river pass Still continuous along tree- 21:36 Soprano pip 1 S F line 21:39 Soprano pip 1 S F still continuous Serotine/ 21:42 - 21:44 Leislers? 1 S F along trees, several passes 21:52 Common pip 1 NS C/F a few passes 22:00 Soprano pip 1 NS F 22:05 Common pip 1 NS F 22:08 Common pip 1 NS F 22:11 Common pip 1 NS F 22:17 Noctule 1 NS F Lots of passes A few passes around the 22:41 Common pip 1 NS F trees Lots of passes around the 22:41 Soprano pip 1 NS F trees
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 105 August 2018 22:45 Soprano pip 1 NS C/F 22:47 Soprano pip 2 NS F Over river bridge
04:14 - 04:15 ND F Several passes
04:15 - 04:17 ND F Several passes 04:38 Common pip 1 NS F Tree-line Duet/ 03/08/2016 KL Two passes around the Express 07 04:44 Soprano pip 1 NS C/F ditch 04:47 Soprano pip? 1 NS C Brief
04:50 Soprano pip 1 NS C/F 3 passes around tree-line 04:52 Soprano pip 1 NS F Tree line, feedig buzzes 19:45 Soprano pip 1 NS F Continuous foraging Duet/ 19:47 Noctule 1 NS F/C far away 15/09/2016 KL Noctule passes Express 02 19:52 Soprano pip 1 NS F/C 2 passes 20:04 Common pip 1 NS C 1 pass Soprano 19.00 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Brief foraging passes at (1) Soprano Foraging in circular 19.02 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C motions (1) Soprano Foraging in circular 19.10 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C motions (1) Soprano Foraging in circular 19.14 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C motions (1) Flew West to East. Common Foraging along field 04/10/2016 RG Duet/Ex02 Nathusius passes 19.16 Pipistrelle 2 S F/C boundary (2) Common 19.18 Pipistrelle 4 1 NS. 3S F/C Foraging pass (2) Soprano 19.19 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Foraging pass (3) Soprano 19.22 Pipistrelle 2 NS F/C Foraging along boundary Foraging along boundary Common quite high at points, 19.24 Pipistrelle (?) 2+ NS F/C possible 55
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 106 August 2018 Common Pipistrelle + Circling around tree on 19.27 Noctule 2 1S F/C boundary Common Pipistrelle + Foraging along boundary. Soprano Constant activity for 5 19.45 - 9.50 Pipistrelle 2+ 1S F/C minutes. 20.00 Noctule 1 NS C Commuting along trees Along tree boundary Common adjacent to buildings along 20.03 Pipistrelle 2+ NS F tree line Common 20.05 Pipistrelle 1+ S F Transect E: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes Row Labels BLE Daub Nathusii Noctule Nyctalus Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Serotine p.Serotine Grand Total 09/05/2016 1 15 3 19 30/06/2016 1 1 1 18 3 24 02/08/2016 1 47 2 24 32 8 2 116 03/08/2016 4 10 14 15/09/2016 6 7 9 22 04/10/2016 3 1 8 35 50 97 Grand Total 4 1 9 54 2 1 1 103 107 8 2 292
Transect F
Species Seen/not Activity recorded but Observation Species from seen Type not noted by Survey Date Surveyor** Detector time observation** No. bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments surveyor Not able to exit studios so retraced steps. 21:36 Pip45 1 NS C Brief pass. Several passes from both Duet/ 09/05/2019 21:43 species Express Brief pass between TP 6-7 (Pip). Foraging around woodland (Pip45). Badger 21:46, 21:48 Pip, Pip45 2 NS F seen at this TP.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 107 August 2018 Foraging in and out of 21:58 Pip45 1 NS F range.
22:08, 22:09, 22:12 2 Pip45, Pip55 3 NS F,F,F/C Foraging in and out of 22:20 Pip45 1 NS F range. 22:24 Pip45, Pip55 2 NS F Foraging in woodland. 21:45 ? ? NS Quiet calls 21:58 Noctule? ? NS Fairly high up, flew north 22:06 ? ? S west 22:07 ? ? ? Lots of passes 22:12 ? ? NS Lots of passes 22:20 Pip55 ? NS 22:27 ? ? NS Duet/ 11/07/2016 NB 22:30 Pip ? NS Express 06 22:34 Pip55 ? NS 22:36 ? ? NS 22:38 ? ? NS 22:39 Pip ? NS 22:43 Pip ? NS
22:45 Pip45 ? S F Flying around street light 22:51 Pip ? NS Over buildings in eastern 20:57 - 20:58 Noctule 1 S F end of studios 21:10 Common pip 1 NS C 21:10 Noctule 1 S F Over field 21:19 Noctule 1 S F Over field Brown long- Duet/ eared -1 pass, 02/08/2016 SS 21:21 Common pip 1 NS F Distant Express 06 Daubenton's - 1 21:30 Soprano pip 2 S F Along tree-line pass Above field, fairly constant 21:34 - 22:05 Noctule 1 S F until 22:05 21:40 ND 1 C One pass 21:41 Common pip 1 S F Along tree-line
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 108 August 2018 Distant, likely on other 21:48 Common pip 1 NS F side of hedgerow Quick pass, likely along 21:51 Myotis? 1 NS F tree-line 21:54 Soprano pip 1 S F Along tree-line 21:55 Common pip 1 S F Along tree-line 21:59 Common pip 1 S F Along tree-line 21:59 Soprano pip 1 S F Along tree-line 22:07 Common pip S F Along hedgerow 22:11 Common pip 1 S F Together alng tree-line 22:11 Soprano pip 1 S F Together alng tree-line 22:17 Common pip 1 S F Along road Distant foraging around 22:33 Common pip 1 NS F buildings 04:45 Common pip 1 S F Along tree-ine 04:45 Soprano pip 1 S F
04:53 Soprano pip 1 S F Brief pass along tree-line Duet/ 03/08/2016 SS 04:55 Noctule 1 S F Along tree-line Express 06 04:55 Common pip 1 S F Along tree-line 04:57 Soprano pip 1 S F Over field 05:01 Noctule 1 S F Over field 05:02 Soprano pip 1 S F Along tree-line Foraging along the road between car park and 19:48 Common pip 1 S F/C studios 19:51 Common pip 1 NS F/C as above 19:53 Common pip 1 S F foraging passes in field adjacent to north Noctule, Duet/ 20:07 Soprano pip 1 NS F/C car park Nathusius and 15/09/2016 RG Express 04 in field adjacent to north Brown long- 20:10 Soprano pip 1 NS F/C car park eared passes 20:12 Common pip 1 S F foraging in TW field Along western edge of TW 20:21 Common pip 1 NS F/C field 20:21 Soprano pip 1 NS F/C 20:27 Common pip 1 NS F/C in TW field
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 109 August 2018 20:29 Common pip 1 NS F/C in TW field 20:34 Common pip 1 NS F/C in TW field foraging along eastern 20:36 Common pip 1 NS F/C boundary of TW field 20:36 noctule 1 NS F/C along eastern boundary Soprano 2 bats circling/foraging in 19.14 - 19.17 Pipistrelle 2 S F same area
Soprano Barn owl hooting nearby. 19.20 - 19.21 Pipistrelle ? NS F Using tree as perch Soprano 19.27 Pipistrelle (?) ? NS F Soprano Leisler's, Noctule 04/10/2016 NB Duet/Ex07 19.35 Pipistrelle ? NS F and Nathusius Soprano passes 19.41 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Many bats heard continuously between Soprano points 6 + 7. Sometimes 19.45 - 19.59 Pipistrelle Many NS F/C +3 bats calling at 1 time Soprano 20.11 Pipistrelle 1 NS F/C Transect F: Anabat Express Data – Number of Bat Passes Row Labels BLE Daub Leislers Nathusii Noctule Nyctalus Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Grand Total 09/05/2016 2 2 2 4 6 16 11/07/2016 13 9 2 24 02/08/2016 1 2 50 12 1 36 10 112 03/08/2016 23 4 8 35 15/09/2016 3 12 6 3 34 12 70 04/10/2016 8 15 16 2 6 8 21 76 Grand Total 4 2 8 29 94 35 4 7 91 59 333
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 110 August 2018 2016 Static Monitoring Survey Findings
Weather and Timings for All Static Survey Nights Date Sunrise Sunset Min Temperature Max Temperature Weather Conditions (night) 26/05/2016 04:54 21:02 7°C 21°C Dry, light/moderate breeze 27/05/2016 04:53 21:03 11°C 22°C Dry, light/moderate breeze 28/05/2016 04:52 21:04 10°C 21°C Dry, light breeze 29/05/2016 04:51 21:05 9°C 19°C Dry, light breeze 30/05/2016 04:50 21:06 11°C 18°C Dry, moderate breeze 31/05/2016 04:50 21:08 11°C 12°C Dry, moderate breeze 07/06/2016 04:45 21:14 12°C 24°C Light rain and thunder, light breeze 08/06/2016 04:45 21:15 14°C 25°C Very light rain and mist, light breeze 09/06/2016 04:44 21:16 13°C 23°C Very light rain and mist, light breeze 10/06/2016 04:44 21:17 13°C 24°C Dry, light/moderate breeze 11/06/2016 04:43 21:17 16°C 22°C Dry, light/moderate breeze 12/06/2016 04:43 21:18 14°C 21°C Dry, light breeze 13/06/2016 04:43 21:19 13°C 19°C Brief light rain, moderate breeze 07/07/2016 04:53 21:18 14°C 23°C Dry, light/moderate breeze 08/07/2016 04:54 21:17 14°C 23°C Dry, fresh breeze 09/07/2016 04:55 21:16 15°C 23°C Dry, fresh breeze 10/07/2016 04:56 21:16 16°C 23°C Dry, fresh breeze 11/07/2016 04:57 21:15 15°C 22°C Brief light rain, fresh breeze 12/07/2016 04:58 21:14 12°C 19°C Dry, moderate breeze 13/07/2016 04:59 21:13 12°C 20°C Dry, moderate breeze 14/07/2016 05:00 21:12 11°C 22°C Dry, light breeze 22/08/2016 05:58 20:08 16°C 26°C Dry, fresh breeze 23/08/2016 05:59 20:06 12°C 31°C Dry, moderate breeze 24/08/2016 06:01 20:04 17°C 33°C Light rain, moderate breeze 25/08/2016 06:02 20:01 18°C 27°C Dry, light breeze 26/08/2016 06:04 19:59 17°C 27°C Dry, light breeze 27/08/2016 06:06 19:57 15°C 26°C Dry, moderate breeze 28/08/2016 06:07 19:55 16°C 21°C Dry, moderate breeze 29/08/2016 06:09 19:53 15°C 24°C Dry, light breeze 30/08/2016 06:10 19:50 13°C 27°C Dry, light/ moderate breeze 31/08/2016 06:12 19:48 12°C 24°C Dry, moderate breeze 01/09/2016 06:14 19:46 13°C 24°C Dry, moderate breeze
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 111 August 2018 13/09/2016 06:33 19:19 16°C 32°C Dry, moderate breeze 14/09/2016 06:34 19:16 18°C 27°C Dry, moderate breeze 15/09/2016 06:36 19:14 15°C 29°C Dry, light/ moderate breeze 16/09/2016 06:38 19:12 14°C 17°C Rainy, occasional thunderstorms, moderate breeze 17/09/2016 06:39 19:10 12°C 16°C Dry, light breeze 18/09/2016 06:41 19:07 14°C 20°C Dry, light breeze 19/09/2016 06:42 19:05 13°C 19°C Damp, light breeze 04/10/2016 07:07 18:31 9°C 19°C Dry, fresh breeze 05/10/2016 07:08 18:28 10°C 17°C Dry, fresh breeze 06/10/2016 07:10 18:26 8°C 12°C Dry, moderate/ fresh breeze 07/10/2016 07:12 18:24 11°C 15°C Dry, light breeze 08/10/2016 07:13 18:22 11°C 17°C Dry, light breeze 09/10/2016 07:15 18:19 8°C 16°C Dry, light breeze 10/10/2016 07:17 18:17 5°C 14°C Dry, light breeze
Static Monitoring Point 1
Static Monitoring Point 1 Row Labels BLE Daub Myotis sp. Nyctalus sp. Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Pip. nath. Grand Total 26/05/2016 - 31/05/2016: data lost 07/06/2016 5 5 08/06/2016 6 9 15 07/07/2016 7 5 13 72 97 08/07/2016 20 15 36 196 267 09/07/2016 1 1 29 40 291 362 10/07/2016 18 1 31 228 1 279 11/07/2016 1 16 3 36 235 2 293 12/07/2016 1 6 24 20 256 307 13/07/2016 31 1 16 327 375 14/07/2016 7 8 179 194 22/08/2016 1 5 13 39 89 8 155 23/08/2016 4 5 1 10 3 54 248 6 331 24/08/2016 1 1 14 33 411 2 462 25/08/2016 2 1 10 7 118 437 5 580 26/08/2016 1 3 13 402 28 447 27/08/2016 1 7 15 342 2 367 28/08/2016 2 16 187 3 208
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 112 August 2018 29/08/2016 1 63 399 3 466 30/08/2016 1 3 2 21 19 224 5 275 31/08/2016 1 1 2 1 34 229 11 279 01/09/2016 1 11 33 45 13/09/2016 - 19/09/2016: Anabat Express removed by a member of the public 04/10/2016 3 2 3 2 24 38 72 05/10/2016 5 2 1 24 52 84 06/10/2016 1 10 13 1 25 07/10/2016 1 1 19 9 30 08/10/2016 3 1 8 12 09/10/2016 10 2 7 19 10/10/2016 1 3 1 5 Grand Total 2 35 30 1 210 73 702 4926 77 6056
Static Monitoring Point 2
Static Monitoring Point 2 Row Labels BLE Daub Myotis sp. Noctule Leisler's Nyctalus sp. Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Pip. Nath. Serotine Grand Total 26/05/2016 26 6 32 27/05/2016 2 4 42 141 2 191 28/05/2016 2 1 3 11 29 2 48 29/05/2016 2 50 25 1 78 30/05/2016 7 48 17 3 75 31/05/2016 1 2 1 57 16 77 08/06/2016 2 4 10 1 17 09/06/2016 1 8 6 17 2 34 10/06/2016 1 1 9 8 19 11/06/2016 2 29 5 36 12/06/2016 6 88 4 98 13/06/2016 5 5 07/07/2016 87 53 140 08/07/2016 1 167 119 287 09/07/2016 1 1 1 1 250 135 389 10/07/2016 1 1 2 355 164 2 525 11/07/2016 1 1 2 1 274 259 1 539 12/07/2016 6 1 6 1 49 112 175 13/07/2016 2 1 17 56 76 14/07/2016 2 18 25 45 22/08/2016 10 2 8 104 124
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 113 August 2018 23/08/2016 11 9 1 5 345 1 372 24/08/2016 4 11 1 1 25 281 323 25/08/2016 3 3 1 10 18 465 500 26/08/2016 1 3 4 1 1 577 1 588 27/08/2016 1 12 3 599 2 617 28/08/2016 2 3 1 4 1 3 605 619 29/08/2016 1 5 1 3 6 489 505 30/08/2016 1 7 2 2 387 1 400 31/08/2016 2 1 2 454 1 460 01/09/2016 2 31 219 252 13/09/2016 1 2 2 92 97 14/09/2016 1 2 4 1 6 444 458 15/09/2016 3 1 10 1 4 517 4 540 16/09/2016 1 2 1 4 206 2 216 17/09/2016 2 1 3 142 148 04/10/2016 100 313 2 415 05/10/2016 1 2 1 1 3 288 779 41 1116 06/10/2016 1 1 95 256 7 360 07/10/2016 2 2 2 96 250 3 355 08/10/2016 6 3 79 132 220 09/10/2016 11 5 8 210 2 236 10/10/2016 18 8 39 65 Grand Total 17 125 33 77 2 2 51 6 2372 9106 80 1 11872
Static Monitoring Point 3
Static Monitoring Point 3 Brandt’s bat/ Whiskered bat/ Row Labels BLE Alcathoe Daub Myotis sp. Noctule Leisler's Nyctalus sp. Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Pip. Nath Serotine Grand Total 26/05/2016 2 1 4 198 7 22 234 27/05/2016 1 2 1 1 1 11 588 6 652 1263 28/05/2016 4 1 4 4 717 12 531 1273 29/05/2016 2 2 3 1 9 569 13 224 823 30/05/2016 1 1 1 2 685 4 522 1216 31/05/2016 23 8 31 07/06/2016 1 1 3 2 6 13 08/06/2016 1 2 31 6 90 29 18 177
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 114 August 2018 09/06/2016 6 3 6 10 106 7 565 106 23 832 10/06/2016 2 4 3 4 1 5 43 1 12 75 11/06/2016 1 8 2 2 13 3 6 35 12/06/2016 4 2 20 1 8 35 13/06/2016 3 1 2 6 07/07/2016 1 40 3 44 08/07/2016 19 2 4 41 152 218 09/07/2016 19 3 22 137 1 182 10/07/2016 9 3 1 102 197 2 314 11/07/2016 1 13 2 69 95 1 181 12/07/2016 1 13 2 1 23 103 1 144 13/07/2016 11 1 2 19 113 146 14/07/2016 85 1 86 22/08/2016 1 14 3 6 3 41 2 70 23/08/2016 2 15 8 29 4 68 2 128 24/08/2016 1 10 2 51 26 80 4 174 25/08/2016 16 10 18 5 55 1 67 78 3 253 26/08/2016 1 1 7 52 4 136 28 4 233 27/08/2016 1 25 6 33 88 65 1 219 28/08/2016 10 31 258 35 334 29/08/2016 6 3 41 149 38 6 243 30/08/2016 8 1 13 2 25 220 44 1 314 31/08/2016 8 2 10 5 36 1 160 52 2 276 01/09/2016 5 4 23 32 13/09/2016 1 4 1 26 2 39 32 105 14/09/2016 3 7 12 22 17 80 125 8 274 15/09/2016 11 2 4 48 205 108 3 381 16/09/2016 1 2 1 1 23 140 103 3 274 17/09/2016 1 1 23 1 17 71 6 120 18/09/2016 3 38 194 122 31 388 19/09/2016 1 5 6 87 4 103 04/10/2016 2 2 9 18 20 51 05/10/2016 1 1 2 2 22 39 76 143 06/10/2016 1 1 1 64 130 99 296 07/10/2016 3 3 4 4 218 96 64 392 08/10/2016 31 23 14 1 59 109 10 247 09/10/2016 23 29 1 23 82 16 174 10/10/2016 17 4 1 22 Grand 10 8 115 87 284 26 53 637 80 6024 2745 2404 1 12574
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 115 August 2018 Total
Static Monitoring Point 4
Static Monitoring Point 4 Brandt’s/ Whiskered/ Row Labels BLE Daub Alcathoe Myotis sp. Noctule Leisler's Nyctalus sp. Pip.soc. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Pip. Nath. Serotine Grand Total 26/05/2016 2 1 25 1 1 30 27/05/2016 1 2 1 139 5 4 152 28/05/2016 26 15 1 19 36 834 80 135 1146 29/05/2016 1 10 4 8 8 55 846 177 144 1 1254 30/05/2016 1 2 10 27 2 11 712 162 217 1144 31/05/2016 1 3 1 7 149 58 30 249 07/06/2016 1 4 12 1 9 27 08/06/2016 2 11 1 31 23 2 70 09/06/2016 1 3 2 20 62 56 1 145 10/06/2016 1 3 3 14 15 34 1 71 11/06/2016 8 16 26 86 136 12/06/2016 1 1 5 4 21 21 37 1 91 13/06/2016 2 1 3 3 12 5 1 27 08/07/2016 2 2 09/07/2016 1 1 10/07/2016 1 2 1 4 12/07/2016 3 3 13/07/2016 4 1 5 22/08/2016 3 3 1 19 12 38 23/08/2016 1 12 1 14 2 20 8 1 59 24/08/2016 1 4 14 1 2 38 6 66 25/08/2016 4 1 1 15 4 33 3 19 15 2 97 26/08/2016 1 2 4 12 10 11 7 47 27/08/2016 18 2 5 1 42 5 7 80 28/08/2016 7 4 12 2 45 15 85 29/08/2016 3 1 7 1 5 3 30 10 60 30/08/2016 8 2 2 75 15 1 103 31/08/2016 1 6 4 43 15 1 70 01/09/2016 1 3 4 1 9 13/09/2016 4 9 38 53 104
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 116 August 2018 14/09/2016 6 1 9 146 127 1 290 15/09/2016 1 8 11 72 298 36 8 434 16/09/2016 3 1 2 27 103 49 3 188 17/09/2016 1 1 2 1 10 10 9 34 18/09/2016 1 2 1 1 18 4 9 36 04/10/2016 42 8 1 51 05/10/2016 1 5 22 21 49 06/10/2016 3 90 95 10 198 07/10/2016 2 2 1 23 106 20 154 08/10/2016 21 13 1 35 09/10/2016 2 12 2 16 10/10/2016 4 4 Grand Total 13 18 1 9 185 70 153 261 113 4020 1385 635 1 6864
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 117 August 2018 2016 Bat Inspection Notes
Main Studio (Refer to Figure 2.1) Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed External Internal External Internal building Referenc Description inspection Roost from inspection inspection Referenc e Internal/ e External Inspection 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 1 H stage Large metal No external Negligible N/A agricultural-type opportunities, shed/building. unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 2 B329 Pre-fab Fascias degraded, Negligible N/A portacabin-type however appear building with flat tight-fitting with felt roof. no gaps. Unlikely to support bats given temperature regime.
08/03/2016 08/03/2016 LR LR 3 Mansion Brick building Numerous High No House with a pitched, opportunities/entry clay-tiled roof. points for bats Numerous dormer including raised windows present and missing roof and parapets with tiles, raised and balconies. missing hanging Hanging tiles on tiles, holes in many of the walls, lifted lead dormers. Creeper flashing, etc. present on
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 118 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed southern aspect. Very complex roof structure.
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 4 B20 Pre-fab All fascia and roof Negligible N/A portacabin with felt in good flat, felt roof. condition. No opportunities for bat roosting.
08/03/2016 08/03/2016 LR LR & DG 5 T2 Brick, flat-roofed Slats to water negligible No building. With tower on roof water or a/c provide potential storage to roof. access points for Slatted wooden bats. Windows on vent, however opposite side - too windows present light for bats? Only on opposite side. other opportunity gaps under roofing felt. Features were ruled out through internal inspection.
08/03/2016 N/A LR/DG N/A 6 B22 Temporary pre- Potential roof Negligible N/A fab type building space, however no with pitched felt external access roof. features visible.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 119 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed 15/03/2016 15/03/2016 LR/DG LR/DG 7 B223 House, brick built Likely roof void. High No with pitched tiled Most roof tiles roof. Roof quite flush, however complex in some lifted tiles structure. present on north- eastern (bay windowed) aspect. Gaps under soffit on NW aspect. Gap under flue on W aspect. Raised lead flashing above chimney stack, NW aspect. Gap under ridge tiles N aspect. Gap between timber and soffits on bay windows on the N aspect. Also lifted tiles and gap behind chimney stack E aspect. 15/03/2016 N/A LR/DG N/A 8 B315 Flat roof building No opportunities. Negligible N/A next to B223, above. Metal portacabin-type building. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 9 Multi- Brick built car No opportunities. Negligible N/A storey car park building. park
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 10 B216 Industrial metal- No opportunities. Negligible N/A clad buildings
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 11 B224 Industrial metal- No opportunities. Negligible N/A clad buildings
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 12 B225A Industrial metal- No opportunities. Negligible N/A clad buildings
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 120 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 13 B227 Industrial metal - No opportunities. Negligible N/A clad buildings - three arches
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 14 B25 Metal shed No opportunities. Negligible N/A
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 15 B24 Metal shed No opportunities. Negligible N/A
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 16 W9 Metal building - No external Negligible N/A agricultural-type opportunities, shed. unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 LR 17 B14 Pre-fab flat- Many external High No roofed building. opportunities Very poor state of including cracks, repair. With a/c lifted roofing felt or water and boards. In container at roof particular, slats to level. Felt roof water unit on roof throughout and and many lifted wooden fascia. panels giving potential access. 08/103/2016 N/A LR N/A 18 B12-12A Container-type No opportunities. Negligible N/A building.
08/03/2016 08/03/2016 LR LR & 19 B11 Brick building Gaps under Negligible N/A DG with corrugated corrugated roof asbestos-type and under roof roof. No roof edging tiles, void. however considered low suitability. Ruled out through internal inspection. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 20 B36A Brick building No external Negligible N/A
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 121 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed with flat, concrete opportunities. roof.
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 21 B329 Metal-clad pre- Some bargeboards Negligible N/A fab portacabin- rotting, however type building with no obvious gaps. flat felt roof. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 22 The Canteen Building. All fascia and roof Negligible N/A Kitchen Brick with flat felt in good felt/concrete roof. condition. Some No roof void. small lifted roofing felt but generally suitability considered low.
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 23 David Brick, partly All roof tiles Negligible N/A Lean rendered building appear tight- Building with a pitched fitting. roof. Roof is tiled Overhanging tiles with skylights on the western present along the aspect, however top. No roof these appear to lie void. flush with the tiles beneath. 08/03/2016 08/03/2016 LR LR 24 KORDA Brick, flat roofed Missing window on High No Theatre building. the north-western aspect of building providing potential entrance point. Also several plant rooms on southern aspect of building with slatted entrances providing potential access points.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 122 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 25 L Stage - Metal building No external Negligible N/A theatre 4 with a pitched felt opportunities, roof. unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. N/A N/A 26 B15 Shed-type No visible features Negligible N/A buildings N/A N/A 27 B16 Shed-type No visible features Negligible N/A buildings N/A N/A 28 B17 Shed-type No visible features Negligible N/A buildings N/A N/A 29 B18 Shed-type No visible features Negligible N/A buildings 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 30 J Stage Metal building. No external Negligible N/A opportunities, unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 31 Adrian Brick building All fascias appear Negligible N/A Biddle with flat felt roof. tight-fitting. Also Theatre Scaffolding to works to roof roof. reduce suitability given disturbance. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 32 C Metal building No external Negligible N/A opportunities, unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 LR 33 M Stage Brick rendered Some gaps Low No building with present under corrugated ridge tiles, asbestos roof. No although no roof roof void. void so limited opportunities.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 123 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed 08/03/2016 LR 34 Admin Brick building Generally all fascia Low No building with a flat roof. well-fitting. Some Some cracks gaps under fascia apparent in however small and brickwork. don't lead to crevices. Cracks in brickwork small and unlikely to provide substantial opportunities. Gaps in brickwork on southern aspect potential to lead to crevice, however given lighting and lack of suitable surrounding habitat, considered low potential. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 35 W Metal building No external Negligible N/A with a pitched felt opportunities, roof. unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 36 WA/B Metal-clad No external Negligible N/A building. opportunities, unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 37 E Metal building Some gaps under Negligible N/A with a pitched felt felt at each end of roof. Brick flat- the building roofed extension providing only with a flat felt opportunities, roof to north- however do not west aspect. appear to lead to
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 124 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed crevices.
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 38 Orson Metal building No external Negligible N/A Welles opportunities, Building unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 39 B40 Metal building. No external Negligible N/A opportunities, unlikely to support roosting bats due to irregularities in temperature regime. 08/03/2016 08/03/2016 LR LR 40 T1 Brick building Wooden vent High No with a flat roof. provides access Wooden vent on opportunity. Gaps northern aspect. also present under north-eastern gable end bargeboards. Vents also present on south-west aspect. 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 41 B36A Brick building no external Negligible N/A with a flat roof. opportunities.
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 42 R Metal building Some gaps under Negligible N/A Concepts with asbestos flashing around roof. vents on roof of western aspect, however given lack of roof void considered negligible suitability.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 125 August 2018 Date Surveyor LUC Building Building External BRP Confirmed 08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 43 B500 Metal and glass no external Negligible N/A building. opportunities
08/03/2016 N/A LR N/A 44 W7/W9 Metal-clad No external Negligible N/A building. opportunities. Unlikely to support bats given irregularities in temperature regime. PL PL 45 Minerals Wooden clad Numerous gaps High No extraction sheds under wooden site cladding and buildings between window boards.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 126 August 2018 2018 Building Inspection Notes – Laleham Nurseries
Building Surveyor Description Bat Roost Potential
B1 RT B1a: a brick shed with a curved metal roof. Tight fitting brickwork with no obvious gaps. Negligible B1b: a wooden panelled shed with a curved metal roof. B1c: a wooden panelled shed with a curved metal roof. A small gap between metal roof and wooden panel at the bottom of the building on the northern aspect. Due to material of building, features are considered unsuitable. B1d: a breezeblock shed with a curved metal roof. Some gaps between roof and breezeblocks on the northern aspect and lifted metal on the southern aspect. Due to material of building, features are considered unsuitable. B1e: a brick shed with a curved metal roof.
B2 RT A two storey wooden panelled building with a clay tiled roof. High External features: poorly fitted wooden panelling and tiles resulting in gaps; damage to the soffit board on the northern aspect and south-west corner of the building; and a gap between the window and lower pane on the southern aspect. Internal features: poorly sealed roof void with numerous gaps between the wooden panels at either gable end and between the tiles, as well as damage to the ceiling allowing access between the loft and the upper floor. Overall, there was moderate to low levels of cobwebbing. Adjacent to the two-storey building in the west was a single storey outbuilding comprised of brick, wooden panelling and a corrugated metal roof. Features included damage and gaps in wooden panelling and presence of dense ivy on the north-west corner of the building.
B3 RT A single storey building comprised of metal with open sides. Negligible
B4 RT A single storey building comprised of brick with small areas of breezeblock and wooden panelling and a clay High tiled roof.
External features: lifted and missing tiles; damaged roof on the south-west corner of the building; lifted and
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 127 August 2018 Building Surveyor Description Bat Roost Potential
missing wooden panels; poorly fitted boarding across window on the western aspect and between the door frame and door on the eastern aspect; missing panelling above doorway on the eastern aspect; and missing bricks on northern aspect of building. Internal features: gaps in tiles and wooden panels on northern gable end; boarded window with gaps; and gaps around door and above door on east side. Low levels of cobwebbing. Adjoining the building was a single lean-to, which was comprised of brick and a bitumen roof.
B5 RT A large building with a curved metal roof and plastered ends. A gap was recorded in the window but this was Negligible considered to be unsuitable due to the material of the building.
B6 RT A two storey building previously used as a shop in the south and a barn in the north. The barn was noted to High (Shop) have an open side on the western aspect. The building was comprised of wooden panelling and brick with a clay tiled roof. External features: missing and lifted tiles; damaged roof on the southern pitch revealing a large hole; gaps between wooden panelling; missing wooden panels on eastern aspect; missing window pane on eastern aspect; and gap under ridge tile on northern gable end. Internal features: the roof void in the south above the shop had gaps between the tiles and wooden panelling at gable ends, a large hole in the roof; and damage to the polystyrene ceiling enabling access between the roof void and the upper floor. The rest of building did not support a roof void. Features included gaps between tiles and wooden panelling; and a window with a glass pane on the eastern aspect.
B7 RT A barn-like building comprised of breezeblocks with corrugated metal cladding and roof (suspect it is Negligible asbestos). Damage to metal on northern and south-eastern aspect.
B8 RT Greenhouse. Negligible
B9 RT Similarly to B9, a barn-like building comprised of breezeblocks with corrugated metal cladding and roof Negligible (suspect it is asbestos).
B10 - 13 RT Greenhouses. B11 was noted to have no glass panelling. Negligible
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 128 August 2018 Building Surveyor Description Bat Roost Potential
B14 RT Brick building with metal roof that was entirely covered in ivy. Brick work appeared to be tightly fitted, Low (Pump however this could not be confirmed due to the high levels of ivy. house)
2018 Tree Inspection Notes – River Ash
Target Surveyor Description Bat Roost Note Potential
1. RT Mature oak tree. A number of rot holes, which potential to provide suitable opportunities for singleton/low Low numbers of bats.
2. RT Mature ash tree. Dense ivy cover. Low
3. RT Mature oak tree. Large cavity, where limb has snapped from the main stem of the tree. High
4. RT Semi-mature ash. A rot hole and woodpecker hole adjacent to each other. High
5. RT Semi-mature ash. Lifted bark, which is being forced open by ivy growth creating a deep cavity. There is High evidence of fissure, which suggests he cavity extend upwards and is deep.
6. RT Mature sycamore. Dense ivy cover. Low
7. RT Mature sycamore. Dense ivy cover. Low
8. RT Semi-mature tree with dense ivy cover. Low
9. RT High levels of ivy cover. No obvious features. Low
10. RT Mature ash. Dense ivy.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 129 August 2018 Target Surveyor Description Bat Roost Note Potential
11. RT Semi-mature hazel. Dense ivy. Low
12. RT Semi-mature ash. Dense ivy. Low
13. RT Mature ash. Dense ivy. Low
14. RT Mature ash. Dense ivy. Low
15. RT Mature willow. Snapped branch with decay and dense ivy cover. Situated on the other side of the river. High
16. RT Semi-mature sycamore. A woodpecker hole and rot hole at the top of the tree below the snap out in the main High trunk.
17. RT Mature sycamore. Dense ivy cover. Low
18. RT Mature ash. Dense ivy cover. Low
19. RT Semi-mature sycamore. Large snap out with dense ivy. No obvious cavities. Low
20. RT Semi-mature yew. Two woodpecker holes and cavities in heart wood. All shallow. Low
21. RT Semi-mature oak. Lifted bark. Low
22. RT Mature oak. Rot hole with a cavity extending inwards. High
23. RT Semi-mature oak. Damage on main trunk exposing heart wood and leading to a cavity. High
24. RT Semi-mature oak. Lifted bark and cavity in heart wood. High
25. RT Semi-mature oak. Numerous cavities including woodpecker holes. High
26. RT Mature oak. Cavity in trunk. High
27. RT Mature oak with woodpecker hole. High
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 130 August 2018
2018 Emergence/Re-entry Surveys –Laleham Nurseries
Weather and Timings for B2, B4, B6 and B7
¹ Wind speed (where available) & score of 0-12 against Beaufort scale where 0 = calm, 2 = light breeze, 4 = Moderate breeze, 6 = strong breeze, 7 = High wind, 9 = Survey Survey Survey Cloud Strong gale, 12 = Date Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather Hurricance Clear, mild, ² Estimated cloud dry, cover of 0-8 where 0 = Sky completely light clear, 4 = Sky half breeze, cloudy, 8 = Sky 12/06/2018 3.12 4.58 4.43 N/A 1 0 0 13C completely cloudy. warm, sunny evening, clear skies, 27/06/2018 21.06 22.51 N/A 21.21 2 0 0 21C ³ Estimate gentle precipitation intensity breeze, on scale of 0-5 dry, where 0 = Dry, 1 = 100% Light drizzle, 2 = Light rain, 3 = cloud Moderate rain, 4 = cover Heavy rain, 5 = 11/07/2018 3.18 5.03 4.48 N/A 2 8 0 15C Torrential rain.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 131 August 2018 B2
Seen/not Activity Survey Time Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor** Detector Location** Observed observation** bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments North- west 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 3.17 Pip55 1 NS C Brief pass. North- west Pip55, 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 3.31 Noctule 2 NS C Brief pass. North- west Faint, brief 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 3.44 Pip sp 1 NS C pass. Flew north to south towards B2 then eastwards over MN North- before west flying south 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 3.54 Pip55, Myotis 2 S C behind B2. North- Brief pass west behind 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 4.00 Pip55 1 NS C surveyor. Flew from east to west over surveyor then southwards along access track. Flew back and North- forth a west couple of 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 4.05 Pip55 1 S C times.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 132 August 2018 Emerged from hole in soffit board on northern aspect. Flew west past surveyor then North- southbound west along 12/06/2018 RT EX06 corner 4.14 pip55 1 S E treeline. Flew from north to south along eastern aspect of the B4 then south-west South-east over the 12/06/2018 RG EX04 corner 3.55 Pip55 1 S C greenhouse. Flew around B2 before South-east flying 12/06/2018 RG EX04 corner 4.00 Pip55 1 S C southwards.
Single bat emerged from north east corner of building. Flew around the corner of the South-east building out 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 21.50 BLE 1 S E of sight.
South-east 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.22 Pip55 1 NS F/C
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 133 August 2018 South-east 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.26 Pip45 1 NS F Single pass, flying low flew between green houses and South-east surveyed 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.27 Pip45 1 S C building Seen foraging between surveyed building and greenhouse South-east in front of 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.41 Pip45 1 S F surveyor
South-east 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.42 Pip45 1 NS F Flying South-east behind 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.47 Pip45 1 NS F surveyor
South-east 27/06/2018 MN EX03 corner 22.52 Unidentified 1 NS F/C North- west Very brief 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 21.52 Pip55 1 NS pass North- Distant - west feeding 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 21.57 Pip45 1 NS F buzz Flew north North- west in west between 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 22.2 Pip45 1 S C buildings North- west 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 22.22 Pip55 1 NS C
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 134 August 2018 North- west Very faint 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 22.27 Pip45 1 NS pass North- west 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 22.43 Pip55 1 NS North- west 27/06/2018 AC EX07 corner 22.48 Pip45 1 NS Two very South-east faint, brief 11/07/2018 RG EX06 corner 3.33 ? 2 NS calls Flew from behind surveyor and then along eastern face of the building and South-east headed 11/07/2018 RG EX06 corner 3.53 Pip45 1 S F/C north.
South-east 11/07/2018 RG EX06 corner 4.01 Pip45 1 NS F/C Brief pass
South-east 11/07/2018 RG EX06 corner 4.08 Pip45 1 NS F/C Brief pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 135 August 2018 Bat flew east and then south along the face of building. Flew to south west corner and started swarming. Few touches before returning. Checked with BN, confirmed he didn't have a pass at the other South-east end of the 11/07/2018 RG EX06 corner 4.28 Pip45 1 S R building. North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.18 Pip55 1 NS Possibly foraging along the conifer North- hedge west behind 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.3 Pip55 1 NS F surveyor. North- west Heard 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.39 Pip45 1 NS briefly.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 136 August 2018 Pass in front of surveyor toward the conifer North- hedges west behind 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.51 Pip55 1 S F surveyor North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.56 Pip45 1 NS F North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 3.58 Pip55 1 NS Passed in front of surveyor North- toward the west road/main 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.01 Pip55 1 S entrance Passed between surveyor North- and the west edge of 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.09 Pip45 1 S building North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.21 Pip55 1 S F North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.22 Noc 1 NS North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.26 Noc 1 NS C North- west 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.3 Pip55 1 NS North- Flew west towards 11/07/2018 BN Ex04 corner 4.31 Pip55 1 NS building B6
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 137 August 2018 B4
Seen/not Activity Survey Time Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor** Detector Location** Observed observation** bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Brief past North-east from east to 12/06/2018 AC EX03 corner 3.44 Pip 1 S C west. Two low flying bats flew over surveyor from east across and South-east then behind 12/06/2018 MN EX05 corner 3.43 Myotis? 2 S C/R surveyor. Flew along hedgerow between South-east two 12/06/2018 MN EX05 corner 4.00 Pip55 1 S C buildings. Circled South-east surveyor 12/06/2018 MN EX05 corner 4.05 Pip55 1 S C twice. Emerged from B2. South-east Same bat 12/06/2018 MN EX05 corner 4.14 Pip55 1 S E seen by RT.
Flew between buildings Bat box Western and then 12/06/2018 NB duet aspect 3.43 Pip55 1 S F northwards. Very brief pass with Bat box Western feeding 12/06/2018 NB duet aspect 3.46 Pip55 1 S F buzz.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 138 August 2018 Bat box Western Very brief 12/06/2018 NB duet aspect 3.55 Pip55 1 NS C pass. Flew east towards surveyor then north along building before South-west heading 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 21.51 Pip55 1 S C west.
Faint South-west noctule 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 22.06 Noc 1 NS C pass Same flight pattern as South-west observation 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 22.2 Pip45 1 S C 21.51. Foraging South-west west of 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 22.22 Pip55 1 S F/C building Passing South-west over 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 22.26 Noc 1 NS C surveyor
Flew north to south over roof of South-west building. No 27/06/2018 RT Ex06 corner 22.31 Unidentified 1 S C echolocation North-east 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.03 Pip45 1 NS F/C Brief pass Flew right over surveyor along North-east ornamental 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.07 Pip45 1 S F/C hedgerow
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 139 August 2018 Flew along hedgerow foraging, then looped back to the North-east way it 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.19 Pip45 1 S F/C came. Same bat as before but this time turned and flew south along North-east east aspect 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.2 Pip45 1 S F/C of building Same as North-east direction as 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.22 Pip45 1 S F/C 22.07. Same North-east direction as 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.23 Pip45 1 S F/C 22.07 Pip45 Same North-east direction as 27/06/2018 RG Ex01 corner 22.35 Pip45 1 S F/C 22.07 Pip45 Very brief Western and faint 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 3.38 ? 1 NS call Western 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 3.42 Pip55 1 NS C Western 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 3.51 Pip55 1 NS C Western 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 4.08 Pip55 1 NS C Western 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 4.16 Pip55 1 NS F
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 140 August 2018 Bat returned to the south end of building - Western same as MN 11/07/2018 NB Ex05 aspect 4.3 Pip55 2 NS R observation
South Brief 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 3.21 Pip55 1 NS C echolocation
South Brief 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 3.33 Pip55 1 NS C echolocation
South Brief 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 3.53 Pip 1 NS C echolocation
South Brief 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 3.56 Noc 1 NS C echolocation Passed east to west in front of South surveyor, 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 4.01 Pip 1 S C flying low
Passed in front of surveyor South and around 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 4.08 Pip 1 S C corner of B5 Two bats entered roost at gable end, under loose South planks. 11/07/2018 MN Ex07 aspect 4.3 Pip55 2 S R (south) North 11/07/2018 AC Ex03 aspect 3.39 Pip55 1 NS Brief pass
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 141 August 2018 North 11/07/2018 AC Ex03 aspect 3.53 Pip45 1 NS Brief pass
B6
Seen/not Activity Survey Time Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor** Detector Location** Observed observation** bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments
South-west Heard in the 12/06/2018 JS EX01 corner 3.31 Noctule 1 NS C distance. Not seen. South-west Possibly near 12/06/2018 JS EX01 corner 4.00 BLE? 1 NS B2.
Swarming behaviour between B6 and South-west 7. Same bat 12/06/2018 JS EX01 corner 4.15 Pip55 1 S R observed by CB.
Flew from west into open area on west side of Western the building 12/06/2018 LS EX02 aspect 4.23 Unidentified 1 S F/C then westwards.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 142 August 2018 Bat observed returning under North-east corrugated 12/06/2018 CB EX07 corner 4.16 Pip55 1 S R fascia of B7. Western Heard in 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.05 Noctule 1 NS C distance Western 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.2 Unidentified 1 NS Quiet and brief Foraging Western between 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.22 Pip55 1 S F buildings Western 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.26 Noctule 1 NS F Same as Western observation 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.26 Pip55 1 S F 22.22 Pip55 Western 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.35 Pip55 1 NS F Western 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.37 Noctule 1 NS F/C Western Foraging and 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.41 Pip55 1 NS F social calls Western Foraging and 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.42 Pip55 1 S F social calls Western 27/06/2018 JS EX08 aspect 22.48 Pip45 1 NS F
Emerged on south east corner, under wooden board. Flew north South-east between 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 21.41 Pip45 1 S E buildings
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 143 August 2018 possibly South-east foraging near 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.06 Noctule 1 NS F site South-east Heard briefly 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.22 Pip55 1 NS F foraging South-east Flew toward AC 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.23 Pip55 1 S F location South-east Foraging near 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.26 Noctule 1 NS F Site South-east Flew west to 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.34 Pip55 1 S C east South-east 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.37 Noctule 1 NS C South-east 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.41 Pip45 1 NS C South-east 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.43 Pip45 1 NS C Flew from behind surveyor heading north South-east towards LS 27/06/2018 BN EX05 corner 22.49 Pip45 1 S C location
Flew north between the buildings. Emerged from wooden boards - same North-east observation as 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 21.41 Pip45 1 S E BN North-east 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.05 Noctule 1 NS
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 144 August 2018 Not very strong call and could be behind surveyor North-east foraging along 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.2 Pip55 1 NS F hedgerow Flew between North-east buildings, north 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.23 Pip55 1 S F/C to south
Flew north between buildings across north face of B7 North-east and down the 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.24 Pip55 1 S F/C east side North-east High above 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.26 Noctule 1 S C flying north North-east 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.35 Pip55 1 NS F North-east 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.37 Noctule 1 NS C
North-east Foraging above 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.41 Pip55 1 S F surveyor
Along hedgerow behind North-east surveyor, west 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.42 Pip55 1 S F to east North-east 27/06/2018 LS EX02 corner 22.48 Pip45 1 NS North-east 11/07/2018 CB Ex01 corner 3.37 Pip45 1 NS C Bat heard briefly North-east 11/07/2018 CB Ex01 corner 4.01 Noctule 1 NS C Very brief call North-east 11/07/2018 CB Ex01 corner 4.01 Pip 1 NS C Very brief call
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 145 August 2018 Bat heard briefly North-east - passing to east 11/07/2018 CB Ex01 corner 4.22 Noctule 1 NS C of surveyor
Bats flew past and in between buildings - circling north side. Return on west side of building with wooden North-east tongue and 11/07/2018 CB Ex01 corner 4.29 Pip55 2 S R groove slats South-east 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 3.33 Pip55 1 NS F South-east 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 3.37 Pip45 1 NS F South-east 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 3.42 Pip55 1 NS F Swarming corner of building several South-east times then flying 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 3.56 Pip55 1 S off South-east 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 4.01 Pip45 1 NS F
Swarming again around corner of South-east building and 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 4.11 Pip55 1 S then flew away
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 146 August 2018 Swarming building and re- entered. Exact location on map - tucked themselves under weatherboarding South-east on corner of 11/07/2018 JS Ex02 corner 4.3 Pip55 2 S R building Bat box Western 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 3.33 Pip Noc? 2 NS Quiet brief
From north into entrance on west side of building. Went in and out twice Bat box Western finally not 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.02 Pip45 1 S appearing again.
In and out of entrance. Flew Bat box Western south - feeding 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.07 Pip45 1 S F buzzes
No echolocation. Flew into Bat box Western entrance from, 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.09 ? 1 S the south
Out of entrance, Bat box Western in and out then 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.11 Pip45 1 S in again
Bat box Western Out of entrance, 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.2 Pip45 1 S F flew north
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 147 August 2018 Bat box Western 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.22 Noctule 1 NS C
Swooped over north section of building into entrance and in and out multiple times before brief period out, Bat box Western then finally 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.24 Pip45 1 S returning
Left entrance, foraging overhead then Bat box Western to the south 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.27 Pip45 1 S F over RG position
Left entrance flew north then back in and out Bat box Western of entrance, 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.29 Pip55 1 S F then flew south
Out of entrance, wrapped around building over Bat box Western the top to the 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.31 Pip55 1 S north. Flew out of Bat box Western entrance to the 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.32 Pip55 2 S F south Flew out of Bat box Western entrance to the 11/07/2018 LS duet aspect 4.34 Pip55 1 S south
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 148 August 2018 B7
Seen/not Activity Survey Time Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor** Detector Location** Observed observation** bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Bat observed returning under corrugated North-east fascia of 12/06/2018 CB EX07 corner 4.16 Pip55 1 S R B7. Bat flew out from under asbestos corrugated fascia (near North-east to above 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 21.54 Pip55 1 S E door) Faint call North-east heard on 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.05 Noctule 1 NS C detector Heard on North-east detector 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.2 Pip55 1 NS F/C nearby Bat seen circling to North-east west of 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.23 Pip55 1 S F/C building Bat flew west to east past surveyor and North-east building 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.24 Pip55 1 S C eastwards
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 149 August 2018 Bats heard North-east close by on 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.25 Pip55 & Noctule 2 NS C detector Feeding heard close North-east by 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.35 Pip55 1 NS F surveyor Heard North-east nearby on 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.37 Noctule 1 NS F/C detector Bat circling round over grass near end of North-east building in 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.41 Pip55 1 S F north North-east Heard very 27/06/2018 CB Ex02 corner 22.48 Pip45 1 NS F/C close by
Weather and timings for B14
¹ Wind speed (where available) & score of 0-12 against Beaufort scale where 0 = calm, 2 = light breeze, 4 = Moderate breeze, 6 = strong breeze, 7 = High wind, 9 = Survey Survey Cloud Strong gale, 12 = Start End Sunrise Sunset Wind1 Cover2 Rain3 Weather Hurricance dry, clear ² Estimated cloud skies, cover of 0-8 where 0 = Sky completely slightly clear, 4 = Sky half breezy cloudy, 8 = Sky 3.17 5.03 4.47 N/A 2 1 0 14C completely cloudy.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 150 August 2018 ³ Estimate precipitation intensity on scale of 0-5 where 0 = Dry, 1 = Light drizzle, 2 = Light rain, 3 = Moderate rain, 4 = Heavy rain, 5 = Torrential rain.
B14
Species Seen/not Activity Survey Time from Species from No. seen Type Date Surveyor** Detector Observed Sonogram** observation** bats (S/NS) (E/R/C/F) Comments Very briefly on 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.22 Pip45 1 NS C detector Heard to west of 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.24 Pip55 1 NS C surveyor Briefly heard on 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.29 Pip55 1 NS C detector Heard very 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.35 Pip45 1 NS C briefly Heard very 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.38 Pip45 1 NS C briefly Bat flew past overhead, north west to 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.52 1 S C south east Bat heard 28/06/2018 CB Ex07 3.56 Pip55 1 NS C briefly
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 151 August 2018 Quiet and 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.22 Pip 1 NS C brief Quiet and 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.24 Pip55 1 NS C brief 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.29 Pip55 1 NS C Brief 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.35 Pip45 1 NS C Brief 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.39 Pip45 1 NS C Brief 28/06/2018 LS Ex02 3.52 1 NS C
2018 Static Monitoring Survey Findings
Weather and Timings for All Static Survey Nights in 2018 Min Temperature Max Temperature Date Sunrise Sunset (night) (night) Weather Conditions (night) 06/06/2018 04:47 21:13 9 20 Warm, dry, light-gentle breeze 07/06/2018 04:47 21:14 13 18 Warm, dry, light-gentle breeze 08/06/2018 04:46 21:15 15 18 Warm, dry, light-gentle breeze 09/06/2018 04:46 21:16 14 17 Warm, dry, light-gentle breeze 10/06/2018 04:45 21:16 16 18 Warm, dry, light air-gentle breeze. 01/07/2018 04:49 21:21 15 25 hot, dry, light-gentle breeze 02/07/2018 04:50 21:21 18 22 Hot, dry, light-moderate breeze 03/07/2018 04:50 21:20 15 20 Warm, dry, light-gentle breeze 04/07/2018 04:51 21:20 14 22 Hot, dry, light-gentle breeze 05/07/2018 04:52 21:19 16 26 Hot, dry, light air-gentle breeze
Static Monitoring Point 1
Grand Row Labels BLE Leisler Myotis Noctule Pip.nath. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Nyctalus Total Fri Jun 8 2018 5 0 3 16 0 1 5 117 0 147 Sat Jun 9 2018 3 0 6 8 0 7 3 104 0 131 Sun Jun 10 2018 3 0 5 6 0 7 16 128 0 165 Sun Jun 11 2018 5 0 9 2 5 16 7 203 0 247 Thu Jun 7 2018 3 2 3 12 0 0 7 144 0 171 Wed Jun 6 2018 1 0 2 15 0 1 5 79 0 103
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 152 August 2018 Sun July 01 2018 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 24 3 31 Mon July 02 2018 1 0 1 0 0 2 11 35 0 50 Tue July 03 2018 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 112 0 121 Wed July 04 2018 0 0 1 0 0 3 53 0 57 Thu July 05 2018 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 66 1 69 Grand Total 22 2 32 59 5 44 59 1065 4 1292
Static Monitoring Point 2 Grand Row Labels BLE Serotine Myotis Noctule Pip.nath. Pip.sp. Pip45 Pip55 Nyctalus Total Fri Jun 8 2018 1 0 3 3 10 1 2 0 20 Sat Jun 9 2018 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 8 Sun Jun 10 2018 0 0 0 2 1 7 1 4 0 15 Sun Jun 11 2018 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 8 Thu Jun 7 2018 0 0 0 8 0 8 4 3 0 23 Wed Jun 6 2018 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 1 0 11 Sun July 01 2018 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 36 2 46 Mon July 02 2018 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 56 0 62 Tue July 03 2018 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 59 0 62 Wed July 04 2018 0 0 1 7 0 1 1 14 2 26 Thu July 05 2018 0 0 6 3 0 0 1 31 2 43 Grand Total 2 1 17 32 6 37 13 210 6 324
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 153 August 2018 Appendix 6– Great Crested Newt Survey Data
Ditch 1 Min. % Pond Air Overnig Turbidi Veg Margin Surveyo Temperat ht ty (0- Cover Inaccessi Torch Date rs ure temp. 5) (0-5) ble Power 11/05/2016- 12/05/2016 JT + SP 16 13 5 0 0 1 million 12/05/2016- 13/05/2016 JT + SP 17 14 5 0 0 1 million 16/05/2016- 1 million 17/05/2016 JT+LR 11 8 5 0 0 17/05//2016- 1 million 18/05/2016 JT + CB 12 7 5 0 0 3 -5 (area 01/06/2016- RG + depende 60% (dried 02/06/2016 CB 12 12 4 nt) up areas) 1 million 02/06/2016- RG + 03/06/2016 CB 11 10 4 4 60% 1 million
Torching
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Unidentifi Small Start/ GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN Larvae ed small newt Date Finish time Weather (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg SN (M) PN (M) SN (F) PN (F) / Eft newt egg Frog Toad
Fine, warm evening following day of 11/05/2016 21:05/21:30 heavy rain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 154 August 2018 Warm evening, no breeze and 12/05/2016 20:50/21:35 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0
Warm evening, no breeze and 20.30/22.15 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 22 0 0 0 16/05/2016
Cool, heavy rain throughout day, showers in the 18/05/2016 No data evening. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 1 11 0 0 0
12°C, light rain, slight breeze, complete cloud 01/06/2016 22:00/23:00 cover 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 16 0 17 1 0 0 1
11°C, Moderate breeze, complete 02/06/2016 21:30/22:30 cloud cover, dry 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 35 0 0 0 0
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 155 August 2018 BOTTLE TRAPPING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small Start/Finish Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date time No. of bottles GCN (M) GCN (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg SN (M) PN (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad 11/05/2016 21:30/05:55 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12/05/2016 19.30/05:30 94 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
08.00/10.00 87 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 17/05/2016 18/05/2016 No data 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 02/06/2016 07:20/9:30 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 24 0 0 0 0 03/06/2016 07:30/9.00 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 0
Ditch 2
Air Min. % Pond Tempe Overnight Turbidity Veg Cover Margin Torch Date Surveyors rature temp. (0-5) (0-5) Inaccessible Power 11/05/2016- 12/05/2016 JT + SP 16 13 5 3 25 1 million 12/05/2016- 13/05/2016 JT + SP 17 14 5 3 25 1 million 16/05/2016- 17/05/2016 JT + CB 11 8 5 3 25 1 million
17/05//2016- 3 -5 (area 60% (dried up 18/05/2016 RG + CB 12 7 4 dependent) areas) 1 million
01/06/2016- 60% (dried up 02/06/2016 RG + CB 12 12 4 4 areas) 1 million 02/06/2016- 03/06/2016 RG + CB 11 10 4 4 60% 1 million
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 156 August 2018 TORCHING
GCN Sub- SN/PN Sub- Small Start/Finish GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN PN SN adult/ Unidentified newt Date time Weather (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg SN (M) (M) (F) PN (F) Larvae/ Eft small newt egg Frog Toad
Fine, warm evening following day of 11/05/2016 22:20/22:45 heavy rain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Warm evening, no breeze and 12/05/2016 21:20/21:44 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warm evening, no breeze and 16/05/2016 21:20/21:44 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cool, heavy rain throughout day, showers in the 18/05/2016 No data evening. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
12°C, light rain, slight breeze, complete cloud 01/06/2016 22:00/23:00 cover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 157 August 2018 11°C, Moderate breeze, complete 02/06/2016 21:30/22:30 cloud cover, dry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
BOTTLE TRAPPING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date Start/Finish time No. of bottles (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg (M) (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad 11/05/2016 22:45/06:30 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/05/2016 19:45/06:00 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10.00/10.30 40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17/05/2016 19/05/2016 No data 40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02/06/2016 7:20/09:00 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 03/06/2016 7.30/9.00 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
Ditch 3
% Pond Air Min. Overnight Turbidity Veg Cover (0- Margin Torch Date Temperature temp. (0-5) 5) Inaccessible Power
11/05/2016-12/05/2016 16 13 5 3 25 1 million
12/05/2016-13/05/2016 17 14 5 3 25 1 million
TORCHING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date Start/Finish time Weather (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg (M) (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 158 August 2018 Fine, warm evening following 11/05/2016 23:28/23:39 day of heavy rain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warm evening, no breeze and little 12/05/2016 21:55/22:10 cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not surveyed on subsequent visits given ditch completely dry.
BOTTLE TRAPPING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small Start/Finish No. of Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date time bottles GCN (M) GCN (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg (M) (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad Bottle trapping not carried out due to low water levels.
Settlement Pond
% Pond Min. Overnight Turbidity Veg Cover Margin Torch Date Air Temperature temp. (0-5) (0-5) Inaccessible Power
11/05/2016-12/05/2016 16 13 5 3 60 1 million
12/05/2016-13/05/2016 17 14 5 3 60 1 million
16/05/2016-17/05/2016 11 8 5 3 60 1 million
TORCHING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date Start/Finish time Weather (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg (M) (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 159 August 2018 Fine, warm evening following day of 11/05/2016 23:16/23:23 heavy rain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warm evening, no breeze and 12/05/2016 22:18/22:26 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warm evening, no breeze and 16/05/2016 22:18/22:26 little cloud. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not surveyed on subsequent visits due to low visibility (very choppy conditions)
BOTTLE TRAPPING
SN/PN Sub- GCN Sub- adult/ Small GCN GCN Unidentified adult / GCN SN PN SN PN Larvae/ Unidentified newt Date Start/Finish time No. of bottles (M) (F) GCN Larvae/Eft egg (M) (M) (F) (F) Eft small newt egg Frog Toad
Bottle trapping not carried out due to bank instability and steep pond margins
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 160 August 2018 Appendix 7 – Reptile Survey Data
Site A – Minerals extraction and arable land bund to South-West of Site Survey Time of Grass Common Visit Date Surveyor Visit Weather Conditions Snake Adder Lizard Slow Worm Other Comments 12°C, moderate breeze, cloudy with intermittent rain 1 31/05/2016 LR 1,00pm showers 0 0 0 0 0 N/A One subadult male found by the water in the south- western corner. One adult male found in long grass to the east of the football 16°C, rain, heavy pitches (off-site, SW corner) cloud, moderate near the fence along the Site 2 20/06/2016 RG 9:30am breeze 2 0 0 0 0 boundary 16°C, light breeze, 3 05/07/2016 RG 9.00am light cloud 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 16°C, sunny, few clouds, moderate 4 08/08/2016 RG 9.00am breeze 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 17°C, sunny, dry, clear sky, light 5 22/08/2016 KL 8.00am breeze. 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 16°C, slight cloud cover, moderate 6 01/09/2016 RG 10.30am breeze. 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 18°C, partly cloudy, 7 08/09/2016 RG 10.15am dry 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
B – Neglected minerals extraction area to south-west of site boundary Survey Time of Grass Common Visit Date Surveyor Visit Weather Conditions Snake Adder Lizard Slow Worm Other Comments
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 161 August 2018 12°C, moderate breeze, cloudy with intermittent rain 1 31/05/2016 LR 1.00pm showers 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 16°C, rain, heavy cloud, moderate 2 20/06/2016 RG 9:30am breeze 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
16°C, light breeze, 3 05/07/2016 RG 9.00am light cloud 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 16°C, sunny, few clouds, moderate 4 08/08/2016 RG 9.00am breeze 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
After survey 4 this site was cleared. Subsequent surveys focussed on Site A only.
C - Studio Land Northern Backlot
Survey Time of Grass Common Visit Date Surveyor Visit Weather Conditions Snake Adder Lizard Slow Worm Other Comments 12°C, moderate breeze, cloudy with intermittent rain 1 31/05/2016 LR 1.00pm showers 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Sub-adult male found under felt along the woodland edge. Two toads found under 16°C, rain, heavy felts along the woodland cloud, moderate boundary of the farmer's 2 20/06/2016 RG 9:30am breeze 1 0 0 0 2 fields.
16°C, light breeze, 3 05/07/2016 RG 9.00am light cloud 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 16°C, sunny, few clouds, moderate 4 08/08/2016 RG 9.00am breeze 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
After survey 4 this site was cleared. Subsequent surveys focussed on Site A only.
Shepperton Studios Ecological Assessment 162 August 2018