Norman Farm Burghclere Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report DRAFT

______

NORMAN FARM, WELL STREET, BURGHCLERE, HAMPSHIRE

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Final Document

June 2017

______

Preliminary Ecological Appraisals  Protected Species Surveys and Licensing  NVC EcIA Management Plans Habitats  Badger  Bats  Hazel Dormouse  Birds  Reptiles  Amphibians  Invertebrates  Riparian and Aquatic Species

ECOSA, Ten Hogs House, Manor Farm Offices, Flexford Road, North Baddesley, Hampshire, SO52 9DF Tel: 02380 261065 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ecosa.co.uk

Registered Office: 3-4 Eastwood Court, SO51 8JJ Registered in England No: 6129868

Norman Farm, Burghclere – Ecological Assessment ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

ECOSA Quality Assurance Record This report has been produced in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing 20151. The report has been prepared in line with current best practice guidance and survey work has been undertaken in line with references within CIEEM’s Source of Survey Guidance2

Description: Ecological Assessment

Produced For: Re-Format LLP

Issue: Final

Report Reference 2655.F0

Date of Issue: 21st June 2017

Date of Survey Works: February-June 2017

Author:

Simon Boswell MSc MCIEEM Principal Ecologist and GIS Specialist

Checked and Reviewed by:

Simon Colenutt BSc (Hons) MCIEEM CEnv Principal Ecologist

DISCLAIMER This is a technical report which does not represent legal advice. You may wish to seek legal advice if this is required. This report may or may not be suitable to support a planning application. Should this report contain recommendations for further survey work or assessment, the results of this would be required in order to support a planning application. COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.

1 Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2015). Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing. Technical Guidance Series. http://www.cieem.net/publications/23/ecological-report-writing

2 www.cieem.net

Norman Farm, Burghclere – Ecological Assessment ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

NORMAN FARM, WELL STREET, BURGHCLERE, HAMPSHIRE

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Background...... 2 1.2 The Site ...... 2 1.3 Aims and Scope of Report ...... 2 1.4 Site Proposals...... 3

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ...... 4 2.1 Introduction ...... 4 2.2 Planning Policy ...... 4 2.2.1 National Policy ...... 4 2.2.2 Local Policy ...... 5

3.0 METHODS ...... 7 3.1 Introduction ...... 7 3.2 Zone of Influence ...... 7 3.3 Scoping ...... 7 3.4 Desk Study ...... 7 3.4.1 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside ...... 7 3.5 Field Survey ...... 8 3.5.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 8 3.5.2 Protected and Notable Species Appraisal ...... 8 3.6 Field Survey Personnel, Timing, Weather and Equipment ...... 10 3.7 Limitations ...... 11 3.8 Bat Emergence Survey ...... 11 3.8.1 Survey Details ...... 11 3.8.2 Survey Limitations ...... 12 3.9 Reptile Survey ...... 12 3.9.1 Survey Details ...... 13 3.9.2 Survey Limitations ...... 13

4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...... 14 4.1 Introduction ...... 14 4.2 Desktop Study ...... 14 4.2.1 Statutory Designated Sites ...... 14 4.3 Habitats ...... 14 4.3.1 Poor Semi-Improved Grassland ...... 14 4.3.2 Bracken ...... 15 4.3.3 Ornamental Planting ...... 15 4.3.4 Other Habitats ...... 16 4.3.5 Summary ...... 16 4.4 Notable and Legally Protected Species ...... 16 4.4.1 Bats ...... 16 4.4.2 Badger ...... 22 4.4.3 Hazel Dormouse ...... 22 4.4.4 Birds ...... 22 4.4.5 Reptiles ...... 23 4.4.6 Great Crested Newt ...... 23 4.4.7 Invertebrates ...... 24 i

4.5 Summary of Key Ecological Features ...... 24

5.0 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ...... 25 5.1 Introduction ...... 25 5.2 Habitats ...... 25 5.3 Notable and Legally Protected Species ...... 25 5.3.1 Bats ...... 25 5.3.2 Birds ...... 26 5.3.3 Reptiles ...... 26

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27 6.1 Introduction ...... 27 6.2 Mitigation/Compensation ...... 27 6.2.3 Bats ...... 27 6.2.4 Birds ...... 31 6.2.5 Reptiles ...... 32 6.2.6 Enhancement ...... 32 6.2.7 Habitats ...... 32 6.2.8 Birds ...... 32 6.2.9 Reptiles ...... 33 6.3 Conclusion ...... 33 6.4 Updating Site Survey ...... 33

Map 1 Site Location Plan

Map 2 Bat Emergence Locations

Map 3 Bat Mitigation

Appendix 1 Proposed Site Plan

Appendix 2 Sites Designated for Nature Conservation

Appendix 3 Assessment Criteria for Bats

Appendix 4 Protected Species Legislation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site is located in Burghclere, Hampshire and comprises two agricultural barns with areas of hardstanding, ornamental planting and semi-improved grassland. The redevelopment proposals comprise the conversion of the on-site barns for residential use.

ECOSA were commissioned by Re-Format LLP to carry out an Ecological Assessment of the site to assess its ecological baseline and to determine any impacts of the proposal. The main findings of the Ecological Appraisal are:

. A number of long-eared bat type droppings were recorded within both on-site barns and therefore these structures contain confirmed bat roosts. Barn conversion will likely result in the destruction and / or disturbance of a bat roost and may cause harm to roosting bats. Emergence and re-entry surveyed carried out in May and June 2017 recorded two common pipistrelle roosting in Barn A and single bats of common pipistrelle and barbastelle in Barn B.

. A licence from Natural England will be required to cover both barns once planning permission has been granted. Further details of mitigation are provided.

. Both barns are suitable for nesting birds and conversion works will result in the loss of nesting habitats. Measures to provide additional bird breeding locations are provided.

. The semi-improved grassland is unmanaged and has become tussocky. A reptile survey carried out between May and June 2017 recorded a low population of slow-worm in the grassland. As a result mitigation recommendations are made to safeguard reptiles through the proposed redevelopment works.

. Diverse native species planting, including hedgerows where possible, will provide enhanced habitat structure and prey resources for bats and birds.

. If the planning application boundary changes or the proposals for the site alter, a re-assessment of the impacts may be required.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Ecological Survey & Assessment Limited (ECOSA) have been appointed by Re- Format LLP to undertake an Ecological Assessment to support a planning application for the redevelopment of Norman Farm, Well Street, Burghclere, Hampshire RG20 9HS (hereafter referred to as the site).

1.2 The Site The site is located on Well Street, Burghclere, Hampshire. The site is centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) SU 47251 60788 (Map 1).

The site comprises two large barns, one in the south and the second in the east. The northern area comprises an area of hardstanding with raised planting belts and ornamental vegetation. The far southern edge of the site comprises an area of unmanaged semi-improved grassland with bracken to the west.

The site is located within a rural area comprising agricultural fields and woodland blocks. Residential buildings are present approximately 300 metres (m) west.

1.3 Aims and Scope of Report The information within this report is based on a field survey and desktop study carried out between February and June 2017. The report describes the ecological features of the site based on the field survey and the desktop study. The report provides an assessment of any potential ecological effects, and likely ecological constraints to the proposed development of the site, based on the identified features of ecological interest. It identifies the need for any measures to avoid or mitigate negative effects on habitats and species, outlines enhancements to the site’s ecology to be implemented as part of the development. The objectives of the assessment are:

. To provide baseline information on the current habitats and ecological features both on site and in the immediate vicinity of the site, where relevant;

. Identify the proximity of any sites designated for nature conservation importance and provide an assessment of any potential impacts the proposed development may have on these;

. To identify the presence/potential presence of diverse habitats and protected species and to provide an appraisal of any potential impacts the proposed development may have on these; and

. Provide recommendations for mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures, where required.

1.4 Site Proposals The proposals for the site are for the redevelopment of two barns for residential purposes. The works will involve redevelopment of the existing buildings for residential including the provision of car parking and associated landscaping. Site access will be formed through a new entrance entering the western edge of the site via Well Street.

Planning permission is being sought during 2017 with construction commencing soon after permission has been granted.

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 Introduction This section summarises the planning policy in relation to ecology and biodiversity within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council administrative area. This information is then used to assess the compliance of the scheme in relation to relevant planning policy and where necessary make recommendations for mitigation and enhancements (see Section 6.0).

2.2 Planning Policy

2.2.1 National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s requirements for the planning system in England. A number of sections of the NPPF are relevant when taking into account development proposals and the environment. As set out within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision- taking”. However, Paragraph 119 goes on to state that “The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined”.

The general impetus of the NPPF in relation to ecology and biodiversity is for development proposals to not only minimise the impacts on biodiversity but also to provide enhancement. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by “…minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible...”

Paragraph 118 states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity”. A number of principles are set out in Paragraph 118, including that where harm cannot be adequately avoided then it should be mitigated for, or as a last resort, compensated for. Where impacts occur on nationally designated sites, the benefits must clearly outweigh any adverse impact and incorporating biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. Protection of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodlands and those sites proposed as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites or acting as compensation for SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites, should receive the same protection as European sites.

In addition to the NPPF, Circular 06/05 provides guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. Paragraph 98 states “the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”. Whilst paragraph 99 states “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted”.

2.2.2 Local Policy On 26 May 2016, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council adopted the Local Plan 2011-2029. The forthcoming Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 has two policies specifically in relation to biodiversity and ecology:

. Policy EM3

For all net additional residential development within a 5km straight line distance of the SPA, relevant mitigation measures will be required in line with the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework. This will include the provision of, or contributions towards, Suitable Alterative Natural Green Space (SANGS), and contributions towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). Applications for large scale residential development (over 50 new dwellings) within 5-7km of the SPA will be assessed individually and, if needed, bespoke mitigation will be required in accordance with Natural England guidance.

. Policy EM4

Development proposals that do not demonstrate overriding public interest will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity and/ or geodiversity resulting from a development can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated and where it can be clearly demonstrated that:

. There will be no adverse impact on the conservation status of key species; . There will be no adverse impact on the integrity of designated and proposed European designated sites; . There will be no harm to nationally designated sites; . There will be no harm to locally designated sites including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs); . There will be no loss or deterioration of a key habitat type, including irreplaceable habitats; and

. There will be no harm to the integrity of linkages between designated sites and key habitats.

In order to secure opportunities for biodiversity improvement, relevant development proposals will be required to include proportionate measures to contribute, where possible, to a net gain in biodiversity, through creation, restoration, enhancement and management of habitats and features including measures that help to link key habitats.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Introduction This section details the methods used during the field survey and desktop study carried out as part of the Ecological Assessment. This section also considers any significant limitations to the appraisal.

3.2 Zone of Influence To define the total extent of the study area for this appraisal, the proposed scheme was reviewed to establish the spatial scale at which ecological features could be affected3. The appropriate survey radii for the various elements of the appraisal (i.e. desktop study and field survey) have been defined in the relevant sections below. These distances are determined based on the professional judgement of the ecologist leading the appraisal, taking into account the characteristics of the site subject to appraisal, its surroundings and the nature of the changes proposed.

3.3 Scoping During the appraisal protected species reasonably likely to be encountered in the geographical area in which the site is located and in the available on site/boundary habitat were considered. These are discussed within the results section (Section 4.0) of the current report. Where such a species is unlikely to be present on site a justification for likely absence is provided. Species considered likely absent from the site are not then considered in the impacts and recommendations sections (Section 5.0 and Section 6.0) of this report.

3.4 Desk Study

3.4.1 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)4 database was reviewed to establish the location of statutory designated sites located within the vicinity of the site. This included a search for all internationally and nationally designated sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within 1km of the site.

Where appropriate, the desk study search area has been extended to take account of any appropriate statutory designated sites which need consideration in terms of

3 The Zone of Influence (ZoI), as defined by CIEEM, is the area over which ecological features may be subject to significant effects as a result of the proposed project and associated activities.

4 www.defra.magic.gov.uk

potential in-direct impacts and which support particularly mobile species5. The Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) were also obtained from MAGIC, which are used to help guide and assess planning applications for likely impacts on SSSIs.

Online mapping resources, at an appropriate scale, were used to identify the presence of habitats such as woodland blocks, ponds, watercourses and hedgerows, within approximately 1km of the site.

3.5 Field Survey The field survey broadly followed standard Phase 1 habitat survey methodology6 and included a search for evidence of the presence of, and an assessment of the site’s potential to support, protected and notable species as recommended by CIEEM7. The field survey covered all accessible areas of the site, including boundary features.

3.5.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey An assessment was made of all areas of vegetation within the site based on the standardised Phase 1 habitat survey methodology8. This involved identification of broad vegetation types, which were then classified against Phase 1 habitat types, where appropriate. A list of characteristic plant species for each vegetation type was compiled and any invasive species9 encountered as an incidental result of the survey recorded.

3.5.2 Protected and Notable Species Appraisal An appraisal of the site’s suitability to support legally protected and notable species was carried out. The following species/species groups were considered during the appraisal.

Bats The survey conformed to current Bat Conservation Trust guidelines10. An assessment was made of the suitability of buildings and trees on the site and immediately on the site boundary to support roosting bats based on the presence of features such as loose or missing roof tiles or lifted lead flashing for buildings and holes, cracks, splits, loose bark and ivy cladding for trees.

5 Search areas for bat records are based upon information contained within Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Third Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Relevant distances for consideration of impacts on SPAs, SACs, Ramsar sites have been based on current published guidance available through web-based sources.

6 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit 7 CIEEM (2013) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 8 The standard JNCC Phase 1 habitat survey methodology involves the production of a Phase 1 map showing the location and extent of habitat types, however, given the limited size and complexity of the site surveyed a Phase 1 habitat map has not been produced in this instance. 9 Plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) 10 Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Third Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London 8

An assessment was made of the suitability of the site and the surrounding landscape to support foraging and/or commuting bat species. The assessment of the potential for the site to support roosting, foraging and commuting bat is based on a four-point scale as detailed in Appendix 3.

Badger The survey involved a detailed investigation of the site to identify evidence of badger residence, foraging or territorial activity. Particular emphasis was placed on locating badger setts, paths, and signs of territorial activity such as latrine sites both on-site and within immediately adjacent areas where access was possible. The status of setts (where appropriate) has been based on standard terminology as detailed in Appendix 3.

Hazel Dormouse The appraisal for the potential of the site to support hazel dormouse was based on an assessment of habitat features that may indicate that the species is present. This includes the presence of key food sources such as hazel and bramble, or plants used as nesting material such as honeysuckle and clematis. Additionally, the species requires a continuum of food supply so that habitat structure, diversity and connectivity to adjacent areas of woodland/scrub are important features in determining the potential presence of hazel dormouse.

Birds The appraisal of breeding birds on the site was based on the suitability of habitat present to support nesting bird communities, the presence of bird species that may potentially nest within the available habitat and evidence of nesting such as old or currently active nests.

The assessment of wintering birds was based on an assessment of the suitability of the habitat on site to support important wintering bird species and populations. Particular attention was paid to the potential for the site to support wintering farmland bird species, waders and wildfowl.

Reptiles The reptile appraisal was based on an assessment of the suitability of the habitat present within the site to support a population of reptiles. Reptiles particularly favour scrub and rough grassland interfaces and the presence of these is a good indication that reptiles may be present on-site. In addition, reptiles may utilise features such as bare ground for basking, tussocky grassland for shelter and compost heaps and rubble piles for breeding and/or hibernating.

Great Crested Newt The appraisal of the site to support great crested newt included establishing the presence of suitable aquatic habitats such as ponds, lakes or other waterbodies within or adjacent to the site and the presence of suitable terrestrial habitat. Waterbodies that are densely shaded, highly eutrophic or that contain fish are likely to be less suitable for this species. All on-site waterbodies were assessed using a standard Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) as detailed in Appendix 3.

In addition, online mapping resources at a minimum scale of 1:25,000 were used to identify the presence of ponds or other waterbodies within a 500m radius of the site. The 500m radius is a standardised search radius to assist in the assessment of the potential of a site and its surrounding habitat to support this species, based on current Natural England guidance11.

Invertebrates An assessment was made of the site for its potential value to support diverse communities of invertebrates. The assessment was based on the presence of habitat features which may support important invertebrate communities. These features include, for example, an abundance of dead wood, the presence of diverse plant communities, varied woodland structure, sunny woodland edges with a diverse flora, waterbodies and water courses and areas of free draining soil exposures. During the field survey there was no attempt made to identify species present as this is a more specialist area of ecological assessment reserved for targeted surveys.

Invasive Species During the field survey any incidental records of invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were recorded. However, it should be considered that the survey was not specifically aimed at assessing the presence of these species and further specialist advice may need to be sought.

3.6 Field Survey Personnel, Timing, Weather and Equipment The field survey was carried out by Simon Boswell, Principal Ecologist of ECOSA.

The field survey was carried out on 6th February 2017. The weather conditions were cold and overcast with approximately 100% cloud cover, an ambient temperature of 7ºC and a wind force of 3 according to the Beaufort wind scale12.

11 English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough

12 The Beaufort wind scale is an empirical measure that relates wind speed to observed conditions on land ranging from 0 - ‘Calm - smoke rises vertically’ to 12 - ‘Hurricane Force - Severe widespread damage to vegetation and structures. Debris and unsecured objects are hurled about.’

During the survey, the surveyor was equipped with a ladder, 10x40 binoculars, a high powered torch and a digital camera.

3.7 Limitations Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The field survey has therefore not produced a complete list of plants and animals and in the absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is absent or that it will not occur in the future.

Not all potential bat roosting features are accessible to the surveyor, e.g. gaps beneath roof materials or holes or cracks in trees, and therefore assessments are based upon the potential for these features to provide suitable roosting opportunities.

3.8 Bat Emergence Survey The bat emergence / re-entry surveys were undertaken in line with current best practice guidelines as set out in the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines10. In accordance with the guidelines for a building assessed as having confirmed roosts two dusk emergence surveys and a single dawn re-entry surveys were undertaken in order to ascertain the presence/likely absence of roosting bats from within the building. Where the presence of roosting bats is confirmed the data also allows for an assessment of the status of the roost present.

The dusk emergence surveys commenced approximately 15 minutes before sunset until approximately 1.5 hours after sunset. The dawn re-entry survey commenced two hours before sunrise until just after sunrise.

The surveys were carried out by five experienced ECOSA surveyors, positioned at previously identified vantage points around the buildings. These vantage point locations allowed a sufficient coverage of the Potential Roosting Features identified on the building impacted by the proposals.

During the surveys surveyors recorded the time, species, location and direction of flight for each bat encountered, with particular attention paid to establishing bat access/egress locations to any roosts within the building.

3.8.1 Survey Details The bat emergence survey was undertaken between May and June 2017. Table 1 provides details of each emergence/re-entry survey.

Table 1: Bat Emergence Survey Details Survey Date Survey Building (s) Duration Weather Conditions Sunset/ Type surveyed Sunrise Time

th Dusk Barn A and Dry, overcast, 100% cloud 8 May 2017 20:15 – 22:39 20:39 Emergence Barn B cover, 13-9°C, light breeze

23rd May Dawn Re- Barn A Dry, clear, 0% cloud cover, 13- 03:04 - 05:19 05:04 2017 entry 11°C, light breeze

2nd June Dawn Re- Barn B Dry, part cloudy, 30% cloud 02:55 - 05:10 04:55 2017 entry cover, 14-10°C, calm

13th June Dusk Barn A and Dry, warm and humid, 25% 21:07-23:22 21:22 2017 Emergence Barn B cloud cover, 21-14°C, calm

During the bat emergence / re-entry surveys the surveyors were equipped with Pettersson D240x time expansion bat detectors. The Pettersson detectors were connected to Edirol R-90 recorders for the full duration of the survey. Recordings made with the detectors were later analysed using Sonobat® (v2.9.7) to confirm the identity of any species encountered.

The bat emergence survey was co-ordinated by Simon Boswell Principal Ecologist of ECOSA (Natural England Bat Licence 2015-12526-CLS-CLS) and was carried out by suitably qualified and experienced ECOSA surveyors.

3.8.2 Survey Limitations Some bat species, e.g. long-eared bat Plecotus species13, generally emerge from their roosts in total darkness and do not produce strong echolocations, and therefore these bats can be difficult to observe and record during bat surveys, leading to under- recording.

3.9 Reptile Survey The reptile survey was undertaken in accordance with current best practice guidelines as set out in Froglife Advice Sheet 1014.

The reptile survey consisted of the laying 30 bitumen felt mats approximately 500mm x 500mm in areas of suitable habitat on the site. Typically, this included areas of suitable habitat with good exposure to the sun. The mats were distributed in all areas

13 There are two species of long-eared bat, the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and the grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus. These species can only be separated by examination of physical characteristics and Phylogenetic Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the two species shall be referred to in this report as long-eared bat. The brown long-eared bat is the commonest of the two species typically being found roosting within large roof voids although small voids and trees are also utilised. The grey long-eared bat is rare and confined to southern England and like the brown long-eared typically roosts in roof voids. 14 Froglife (1999) Froglife Advice Sheet 10 Reptile Survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting, surveys for snake and lizard and conservation 12

considered to offer suitable reptile habitat. The mats were placed in the grassland immediately south of Barn B, the only area within the site with suitability for reptiles.

The use of such refugia is an effective way of surveying for all species of reptile and current survey guidance states that seven inspections are sufficient to confirm presence/likely absence. Surveys visits were undertaken in marginal weather conditions such as cold but sunny weather or hazy and somewhat overcast conditions, as this will maximise the thermal value of the refugia for basking reptiles.

During each inspection surveyors also undertook a visual inspection survey of other suitable refugia in the site and other suitable basking locations. During the survey a note was also made of any suitable hibernation features present within the site.

3.9.1 Survey Details The refugia were distributed on 7th April 2017 with seven inspection visits undertaken between April and May 2017. Table 2 provides details of each reptile survey.

Table 2: Reptile Survey Details Survey Date Temperature Weather Conditions 19th April 2017 12°C Sunny, dry, 30% cloud cover with a light wind

25th April 2017 9°C Sunny spells, 70% cloud cover with a light wind

th Cloudy with occasional sunny spells , 80% cloud 4 May 2017 12°C cover with a light wind 9th May 2017 11°C Cloudy, 90% cloud cover with a light wind

th Overcast, windy, 100% cloud cover with a light 15 May 2017 13°C wind 18th May 2017 15.5°C Sunny, 50% cloud cover with a light wind

23rd May 2017 17°C Overcast, 100% cloud cover with a light wind

The reptile survey was co-ordinated by Simon Boswell of ECOSA assisted by suitably experienced ECOSA surveyors.

The survey was undertaken using 30 reptile refugia comprising approximately 500mm x 500mm square of bitumen roofing felt.

3.9.2 Survey Limitations There were no limitations to the reptile surveys, all were undertaken in suitable weather conditions during the spring period when reptile surveys are most effective.

4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

4.1 Introduction This section details the results of the Ecological Assessment undertaken for the site. It assesses the baseline ecological conditions of the site at the time the desktop study was completed and based on the ecological features recorded during the ecological surveys carried out between February and June 2017.

4.2 Desktop Study

4.2.1 Statutory Designated Sites There are no statutory designated sites of nature conservation situated within a 1km radius of the site. The closest statutory designated site of nature conservation to the site is Herbert Plantation Local Nature Reserve located approximately 1.1km north. Given the small scale of the proposals there are unlikely to be any impacts on statutory designated sites as a result of the proposals and therefore they are not discussed further in this report. Supplementary information on sites designated for nature conservation is provided in Appendix 2.

4.3 Habitats Habitats are described in general terms using standard Phase 1 habitat survey terminology, with reference to dominant, characteristic and notable species in each vegetation type. The main habitats recorded on site during the Phase 1 habitat survey were as follows:

4.3.1 Poor Semi-Improved Grassland An area of poor semi-improved grassland is present to the south-west of the site in association with a number of fruit trees. This area has become tussocky due to lack of regular management (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Species recorded within this area included broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, herb robert Geranium robertianum, cock’s- foot Dactylis glomerata, common nettle Urtica dioica, cleavers Galium aparine, tall fescue Festuca arundinacea, yarrow Achillea millefolium and willowherb Epilobium species. A number of immature planted apple Malus domestica trees are also present within this area of grassland.

Figure 1: Poor semi-improved grassland facing Figure 2: Poor semi-improved grassland facing east north

4.3.2 Bracken The southern section of the western site boundary is a small area of bracken Pteridium aquilinum. This is immediately west of the poor semi-improved grassland and has formed on a bank associated with the off-site road. The habitat contains abundant dense bracken with associated bramble Rubus fruticosus aggregate and common nettle (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Bracken at north-east of the site Figure 4: Ornamental planting facing east

4.3.3 Ornamental Planting An area of ornamental planting is present to the centre of the site (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Species planted here included rose Rosa species, lavender Lavandula species, dogwood Cornus sanguinea and a number of semi-mature flowering cherry Prunus species trees.

Figure 5: Ornamental planting facing north

4.3.4 Other Habitats Much of the north of the site is dominated by gravel hardstanding footpaths. Two barns are present to the south and east of the site, these are discussed in more detail in Paragraph 4.4.1.

4.3.5 Summary The site is dominated by the existing buildings and hardstanding, with areas of poor semi-improved grassland and small areas of ornamental tree and shrub planting. All habitats have low diversity and comprise common and widespread species.

4.4 Notable and Legally Protected Species

4.4.1 Bats

Building Assessment There are two Barns on site, Barn A and Barn B, as shown in Table 3 Both Barn A and Barn B contain a number of suitable access/egress points for roosting bats including gaps in wooden cladding, slipped raised and missing roof tiles, gaps under ridge tiles and gaps beneath the eaves of the buildings. In addition tens of long-eared bat15 type droppings were recorded within both buildings. As a result both Barn A and Barn B are confirmed roosts. The results of the building assessment are provided in Table 3.

15 There are two species of long-eared bat, the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and the grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus. These species can only be separated by examination of physical characteristics and Phylogenetic Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the two species shall be referred to in this report as long-eared bat. The brown long-eared bat is the commonest of the two species typically being found roosting within large roof voids although small voids and trees are also utilised. The grey long-eared bat is rare and confined to southern England and like the brown long-eared typically roosts in roof voids.

Tree Assessment There are a number of trees on site however the trees are semi-mature or immature and lack features such as splits, holes, peeling bark or ivy cladding that would be suitable for roosting bats. The site is therefore considered to have negligible suitability for tree roosting bats.

Foraging and Commuting Habitat The on-site habitats provide limited foraging opportunities for bats and are unlikely to attract a significant amount of invertebrate prey. However due to the sites rural location and proximity to suitable foraging habitat, in the form of treelines and woodland blocks to the north, south and east it is likely that bats will commute across the site to these more suitable foraging habitats. Therefore, the site is considered to have medium suitability for foraging and commuting bats.

Table 3: Building assessment – summary of features with bat roost potential and evidence of bat roost activity

Surveyed Figure Building Description Description of Potential Bat Evidence of Bat Roost Assessment of Feature Roost Features Activity and Location Bat Roost Potential

Barn A Barn A is a two storey hay barn The roof tiles are in good Tens of long-eared bat Confirmed roost and is of similar construction to condition with some small gaps. type droppings were Barn B with slate roof tiles and Gaps are present below the recorded scattered clay ridge tiles. The exterior is eaves on all elevations. across the interior of the wooden clad a (Figure 6). building during the Internally the building is single There are a large number of survey. skinned. gaps within the wooden cladding of the building which provide The ground floor is open and access/egress points for roosting used as a storage bats (Figure 7). In addition

room/workshop. The first floor boarded windows and doors are Figure 6: North-eastern elevation covers the central part of the poorly sealed (Figure 8). barn. This area was not accessed for reasons of health and safety.

Figure 7: Gaps within wooden cladding

Figure 8: Internal gaps 18

Surveyed Figure Building Description Description of Potential Bat Evidence of Bat Roost Assessment of Feature Roost Features Activity and Location Bat Roost Potential

Barn B Barn B is a single storey building Many of the roof tiles are Tens of long-eared bat Confirmed roost with a wooden frame and a missing, broken or lifted, a type droppings were pitched gable ended roof (Figure number of gaps are present recorded scattered 9). The roof tiles are slate with under the ridge tiles. across the interior of the clay ridge tiles. A large door is building during the present on the northern There are a large number of survey. elevation, a second similar door gaps within the wooden cladding on the southern elevation has of the building which provide been boarded up. access/egress points for roosting bats (Figure 11).

Internally the building is open to Figure 9: Northern elevation of Barn B the rafters with associated oak beams (Figure 10). The walls of the building are singles skinned. Breathable Roof Membrane (BRM) and sarking is present as a form of insulation on the roof.

Figure 10: Internal area of Barn B

Figure 11: Slipped and missing roof tiles northern elevation on Barn B

Bat Emergence Survey Results A single barbastelle and common pipistrelle were recorded roosting in Barn B. Two common pipistrelle were recorded roosting in Barn A. The survey recorded activity of six species of bats; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, serotine Eptesicus serotinus, long-eared bat Plecotus species, Myotis16 bat species and barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus. Table 4 details of the species, numbers and locations of bats recorded roosting and foraging/commuting during the bat survey. The location of bat emergences is shown in Map 2.

Table 4: Bat Survey Results

Survey Recorded Bat Roosts General Bat Activity at the Site Date 8th May Species First Last Species First Pass Last Pass 2017 (Barn Emergence Emergence A and Barn Common Bat species 21:00 - 20:57 22:38 B) pipistrelle Summary: Soprano 21:05 22:33 A single unidentified bat species was pipistrelle recorded emerging from the northern elevation of Barn B at 21:00. The bat did not Serotine 21:38 21:46 echolocate as it emerged. No other emergences were recorded. Long-eared bat 21:00 22:00

Myotis bat 21:59 - Summary: The majority of the activity recorded was dominated by common and soprano pipistrelle, as well as seven registrations of serotine, three registration long-eared bat species and a single registration of a Myotis bat species. The vast majority of registrations were recorded as passes with a small amount of foraging of also recorded.

23rd May Summary: Species First Pass Last Pass 2017 (Barn No bats were recorded re-entering Barn A. A only) Common 03:20 04:31 pipistrelle

Soprano 03:22 - pipistrelle

Serotine 03:09 - Summary: There was a relatively limited amount of bat activity during the survey. Apart from single soprano pipistrelle and serotine registrations all bats recorded were common pipistrelle. Most registrations were of bats passing with a small number of foraging common pipistrelle recorded.

16 There are seven species of Myotis bats in Britain. Myotis bats are very difficult to identify specifically, this can generally only be done by examination of physical features and Phylogenetic Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Many of these bats are common and will utilise buildings for roosting often occupying small and inaccessible voids. For the purpose of this report all species shall be referred to as Myotis bats unless a specific identification has been possible.

2nd June Summary: Species First Pass Last Pass 2017 (Barn No bats were recorded re-entering Barn B. B only) Common 03:01 04:20 pipistrelle

Soprano 03:02 - pipistrelle

Long-eared bat 03:49 - Barbastelle 03:51 -

Summary: The majority of activity was recorded along the western site boundary, whereas the surveyor located on the eastern edge of the barn recorded a lower level of activity.

Common pipistrelle made up the majority of registrations with two bats recorded foraging. Single registration of soprano pipistrelle, barbastelle and long-eared bat species were recorded.

13th June Species First Last Species First Pass Last Pass 2017 (Barn Emergence Emergence A and Barn Common Barbastelle 22:10 - 21:39 23:20 B) pipistrelle Common Soprano 22:11 21:47 22:12 22:28 pipistrelle pipistrelle Summary: Long-eared bat 21:52 22:31 Singles of common pipistrelle and barbastelle were recorded emerging from the Barbastelle 22:10 22:47 eastern elevation of Barn B at 22:10 and Summary: 22:11 respectively. Two common pipistrelle The majority of the activity recorded was were recorded emerging from the northern dominated by common pipistrelle. Long- elevation of Barn A, both emerged from the eared bat was the second most frequently same location in quick succession. recorded species, including a number of

bats foraging around the barns. Barbastelle

was recorded emerging from the eastern elevation of Barn B and then heading south away from the site. Two registrations of soprano pipistrelle were the only other bat species recorded during the survey.

Summary Assessment Two common pipistrelle were recorded emerging from Barn A, which suggest a low status day roost. A single common pipistrelle and barbastelle were recorded emerging from Barn B, again this is suggestive of low status day roosts of these species. A single further bat was recorded emerging from Barn B during the first survey, this bat did not echolocate, however the emergence time twenty minutes after sunset is indicative of a bat species that emerges early, for instance a common pipistrelle.

Both barns also contained a scattering of long-eared type bat droppings. Whilst no emergences / re-entries of long-eared bats were recorded it is possible that the bats emerged in total darkness or that the barns are used intermittently. Considering the

low number of droppings recorded it is considered that the building supports a low status day roost of long-eared bats.

Barbastelle is listed under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive (see Appendix 4 for further details). Annex II includes species that are classed as endangered / rare and/ or endemic. As such barbastelle receives a high level of protection, especially in relation to roosting sites.

The site is considered to have moderate suitability for foraging and commuting bats. The level of bat activity recorded was considered to be typical of the setting and with moderate species diversity with a total of six at species recorded during the survey; activity on site was dominated by common pipistrelle with lower levels of soprano pipistrelle, long-eared bat, serotine, barbastelle and a single registration of a Myotis bat species. It is considered that the level of bat activity recorded is typical for the setting of the site and habitats present within and surrounding the site. Due to the extent of suitable foraging and commuting habitat in the wider area, the site is considered to be of low importance for foraging and commuting bats.

4.4.2 Badger Grassland on site is suitable for badger foraging. No evidence of badger setts was recorded on site and there is no extensive cover that would obscure evidence of a badger sett. The site is connected to further suitable habitat in the wider area in the form of agricultural land. Given the lack of a badger sett within the site and limited scope of the works badgers are not considered further in this report.

4.4.3 Hazel Dormouse Suitable habitat for hazel dormouse, such as well-connected diverse hedgerows or woodland, is not present on site and the shrub habitat is isolated and limited in extent. The habitat on site is unsuitable for hazel dormouse and therefore the species is not considered further in this report.

4.4.4 Birds A number of birds were recorded on site or within the vicinity of the site. These included redwing Turdus iliacus, blue tit Parus caeruleus, robin Erithacus rubecula, great tit Parus major, collared dove Streptopelia decaocto, jackdaw Corvus monedula and wood pigeon Columba palumbus. In addition greylag goose Anser anser was also recorded flying over the site.

The on-site buildings provide opportunities for nesting birds, in particular swallow Hirundo rustica, nests and old eggs shells of this species were recorded in both barns. Single wren Troglodytes troglodytes and blackbird Turdus merula nests were also recorded in Barn A (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Barn A also has the potential to

provide suitable shelter for barn owl Tyto alba although no evidence of this species was recorded either during the field or bat surveys. During the bat emergence and re- entry surveys swallow were recorded breeding in both Barn A and Barn B.

The shrubs and trees within the site are of limited suitability for nesting birds, although it is possible that common species such a robin nest in these areas on occasion.

The site is considered unsuitable for notable species of wintering birds due to the limited extent of suitable grassland habitat present.

Figure 12: Wren nest in Barn A Figure 13: Blackbird nest in Barn A

4.4.5 Reptiles Initial Assessment The on-site grassland is unmanaged and become tussocky and provides the necessary cover for reptile shelter and foraging. In addition the bracken habitat would also provide good quality shelter for reptiles if present on site.

Reptile Survey Results A reptile survey was undertaken on grassland to the south of Barn B which will be impacted by the proposals. A small population of slow-worm Anguis fragilis was recorded with a maximum count of one individual recorded on two of the surveys. A small area of the on-site reptile habitat will be destroyed as a result of the proposals.

4.4.6 Great Crested Newt There are three waterbodies within a 500m radius of the site one approximately 100m north-east, one 190m south-east and the third 390m south-east. These ponds are separated from the site via agricultural fields. The on-site grassland is unmanaged and tussocky. However this area is limited in its extent, unlikely to provide the sufficient cover for the species.

If breeding great crested newts are present within the ponds in the wider area it is likely that during their terrestrial phase they will utilise more suitable habitat in the

surrounding area. Given the scale of the site and remoteness of the ponds it is unlikely that great crested newt will be impacted by the proposals and therefore this species is not considered further.

4.4.7 Invertebrates Due to the low diversity and limited extent of on-site habitats it is considered unlikely that the site will support notable invertebrate species or assemblages. This species group is therefore not considered further in this report.

4.5 Summary of Key Ecological Features The site mainly comprises hardstanding and buildings and is of relatively limited value. The following features are those with greatest ecological value at the site:

. Confirmed bat roosts within the barns;

. Suitability for nesting birds; and

. Confirmed low population of slow-worm within on site grassland.

5.0 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

5.1 Introduction This section considers, in outline, the potential effects of the proposed development scheme on the identified features of ecological interest as identified in Section 4.0 and summarised in Paragraph 4.5.

The proposed development entails the conversion of the barns on site for residential use. The conversion works are likely to result in the loss of areas of semi-improved grassland, bracken, ornamental planting and areas of hardstanding.

5.2 Habitats The redevelopment works are likely to result in the loss of small areas of common and widespread habitats of low ecological value including, hardstanding, semi- improved grassland, ornamental planting and bracken. The significance of these impacts is negligible.

5.3 Notable and Legally Protected Species Of those notable and protected species identified as being likely present on site during the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal the following potential impacts have been identified:

5.3.1 Bats During the field survey tens of long-eared bat type droppings were recorded within both barns and numerous potential roosting features were recorded. The bat emergence / re-entry surveys recorded a maximum of two common pipistrelle intermittently roosting in Barn A and single common pipistrelle and barbastelle roosting in Barn B (see Map 2). It is considered that Barn A supports a low status non-breeding roost of common pipistrelle and long-eared bat and Barn B supports low status non-breeding roosts of common pipistrelle, barbastelle and long-eared bat.

In the absence of mitigation the demolition of the property will result in the disturbance and loss of the roosts supported by the building.

Low levels of bat foraging and commuting activity were recorded from the site by six species foraging on and off-site and commuting in the vicinity. Common pipistrelle was the most frequently recorded species. There are unlikely to be any impacts on foraging / commuting bats as a result of the proposals and no external lighting is proposed.

In England, bats and their habitat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through inclusion in Schedule 5. In addition, all bat species are

protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Refer to Appendix 4 for details.

5.3.2 Birds Redevelopment of the on-site buildings will result in the loss of access points into the internal areas of the buildings by birds for nesting. In addition removal of vegetation has the potential to have an effect on breeding birds if undertaken during the nesting season.

5.3.3 Reptiles Removal of areas of poor semi-improved grassland and bracken will result in a net loss of suitable reptile habitat on site and may result in the killing or injury of individuals. Given the small area of suitable vegetation to be removed as a result of the proposals the impacts of the scheme are considered to be minor.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction This section provides a summary of the mitigation/compensation and enhancement measures to be implemented as part of the proposals resulting from the baseline ecological condition and assessment of impacts and effects. Methods for addressing potential impacts on features of ecological interest have been approached in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy17 with avoidance of impacts prioritised where possible. Where impacts cannot be avoided mitigation is prioritised over compensation and enhancement.

6.2 Mitigation/Compensation

6.2.1 Habitats Any proposed landscaping to be incorporated into the site should comprise native species wherever possible.

All works will follow protective measures in line with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. This document outlines the use of tree protection barriers to be used for the duration of the construction phase. These barriers are proposed to shield the boundary vegetation from damage during construction.

6.2.2 Badger In the unlikely event that a badger becomes trapped in excavations during construction works, a timber ramp should be inserted to allow the animal to escape of its own accord.

6.2.3 Bats As a result of the loss and disturbance of common pipistrelle, barbastelle and long- eared bat roosts within the Norman Farm barns, a Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence will be required prior to the works commencing. The data gathered during the surveys will be incorporated into the EPSM licence application and will be used to devise an appropriate mitigation strategy.

The species protection provision of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2010, contains three ‘derogation tests’ which must be applied by the Local Planning Authority at the Planning Application stage and by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to

17 In accordance with CIEEM Ecological Impact Assessment guidance a sequential process is adopted to address impacts on features of ecological interest, with ‘Avoidance’ prioritised at the top of the hierarchy and Compensation/Enhancement’ at the bottom. This is often referred to as the ‘mitigation hierarchy’.

a person carrying out an activity which would harm a European Protected Species. The three tests that must be met in order to successfully obtain a Natural England EPSM licence are as follows:

. The consented operation must be for ‘preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’;

. There must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’; and

. The action authorised ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.

Preserving Public Health and Safety or other Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest The barns are recognised heritage assets which are currently deteriorating. The provision of a viable long term alternative use for the barns will secure their future heritage asset value.

No Satisfactory Alternative The option of ‘doing nothing’ would not optimise the site’s potential as detailed above. Furthermore, If the option of ‘doing nothing’ was chosen, the building would continue to fall further into disrepair, eventually making it less suitable for supporting roosting bats.

Maintaining the Favourable Conservation Status of the Species at the Site Due to the presence of roosting bats within the Barns, the proposed conversion and renovation works would result in the disturbance and harm to day roosts of common pipistrelle, long-eared bat and barbastelle. As a result of the disturbance and loss of bat roosts at the site, an EPSM licence will be required prior to the proposed works commencing.

The EPSM licence application will require the preparation of a clear and reasoned Method Statement which details the methods for maintaining the conservation status of the species at the site. The Bat Mitigation Guidelines18 state that where a roost falls into the “Small number of rarer species. Not a maternity site.” category, mitigation requirements in relation to the barbastelle roost are “Timing constraints. More or less like-for-like replacements. Bats not to be left without a roost and must be given time to

18 Mitchell-Jones (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature. Peterborough

find replacement. Monitoring for 2 years preferred.” These requirements and the requirements for the other low status roosts of common species can be met by the following measures:

. Five bat boxes of varying designs will be installed in boundary trees by an ecologist in order to provide additional roosting opportunities. The bat boxes will remain in place in perpetuity in order to provide interim and longer-term roosting habitat.

. All demolition and renovation works associated with suitable roosting features such as the roof and timber boarding will be carried out during September/October or March-May, so as to minimise the impact on bat roosting locations. These two periods are a time when bats are neither hibernating nor breeding, and are less vulnerable to disturbance.

. Barn A contained low status common pipistrelle and long-eared bat and therefore would normally only be constrained to a March-October destructive search window. However, it possible that the barbastelle roosting on site uses both barns interchangeably given their similar structure and design. Therefore a September/October or March-May for Barn A is also recommended.

. Prior to any works commencing at the site, the buildings will be inspected internally/externally by a licensed bat worker to locate any roosting bats. Where considered appropriate, any bats found will be placed within bat boxes previously erected on trees located within the site grounds. This work will include the mortise joints present in the wooden frame of the barns.

. To ensure that no bats are injured or maimed during the demolition and refurbishment works, the careful removal of all identified bat roost areas and suitable bat roosting features (such as roofing tiles and timber boarding) will be carried out by/under the supervision of a licensed bat worker using hand tools during a destructive search. The ecologist will work on-site with the construction team from the start of the works until all suitable roosting areas have been carefully removed.

. A toolbox talk will be given to contractors on site who will be involved in the destructive search works. It will be compulsory for contractors to sign an agreement stating that they have understood the requirements of working with bats.

. In order to ensure that opportunities for bats are maintained at the site, it is recommended a dedicated void and crevice spaces are provided to offer replacement habitat. The location of all mitigation is shown on Map 3.

. The dedicated bat roost void, located within the void at the eastern end of Barn B. The void will measure approximately 1.5m high x 4m long x 2.5m wide with a volume of 7.5m3. The interior of the void will be lined with bituminous felt lining to provide suitable purchase for roosting bats and a series of vertical plywood baffles will be installed to provide crevice spaces: the baffles will comprise plywood sheets installed at 20mm-35mm spacing. A suitable non-permeable membrane will be fitted to the void floor to prevent damp or odour seepage.

. Access/egress will be via access slits beneath the eaves at two locations along the eastern elevation (20mm high x 60mm wide), as well as a single letterbox access slit (20mm high x 60mm wide) on the half-hipped roof. The eave access slits will allow bats to crawl over the wall plate and up into the void. The gable apex slit will allow ready access into the void.

. Two dedicated self-contained roosting units will be built into the void behind the wooden cladding on each barn (Figure 14 and Figure 15). Two will be located on the western elevation of Barn B and two will be located on the northern elevation of Barn A. These units will be installed within the cavity between external and internal cladding, the roost units will be located in the exterior section of the cavity, with insulating material filling the remaining interior section. The Bat access to these roost units will be 20mm high by 60mm wide. Traditional bitumen roofing membrane will be used to line the roost units.

. No external lighting will be installed within the new development.

. To determine the success of the mitigation implemented all bat roosting features will be monitored twice a year between May and September for two years following the completion of the development, through the implementation of a single annual bat emergence surveys in the peak of the season.

Figure 14: Example of self-contained bat roost unit to be installed behind wooden cladding on Barn A and Barn B

Figure 15: Example of self-contained bat roost unit to be installed behind wooden cladding on Barn A and Barn B 6.2.4 Birds It is recommended that, where possible, any removal or alteration of trees or shrubs (where necessary) is undertaken outside of the main bird nesting season which extends from March to August, inclusive. Should such works be necessary within this time period, then the site should be inspected by a suitably qualified ecologist immediately prior to works commencing.

Conversion of the barns to residential accommodation will make them unsuitable for nesting swallow. However there are open barns immediately to the east of the site which will continue to provide suitable breeding locations.

Inclusion of diverse native species planting, including berry bearing species such as rowan Sorbus aucuparia, holly Ilex aquifolium, whitebeam Sorbus aria, spindle Euonymus europaeus, dog rose Rosa canina, guelder rose Viburnum opulus, elder Sambucus nigra, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum or ivy Hedera helix will improve food resources for birds.

6.2.5 Reptiles Removal of small areas of vegetation with suitability for reptiles just to the south of Barn B will be undertaken under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. Grassland will cut using hand tools to make it unsuitable for reptiles. Any reptiles recorded will be translocated to the suitable reptile habitat present in the orchard to the south of this area. Heras fencing will be erected on the southern boundary of the site to protect the suitable offsite reptile habitat.

Widespread reptile species (slow-worm, common lizard Zootoca vivipara, grass snake Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus) are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against harm, see Appendix 4 for details.

6.2.6 Enhancement

6.2.7 Habitats Proposed hedgerows will be incorporated to strengthen the boundaries. Species to be used should mirror those already present within nearby naturally occurring woody vegetation and comprise native species rather than cultivars. The following mix for the hedgerow planting will be used with percentages in brackets: hazel Corylus avenella (15%), field maple Acer campestre (15%), spindle (10%), hawthorn (15%); holly (12%), blackthorn Prunus spinosa (10%), elder (10%), honeysuckle (5%); guelder rose (5%) and dog-rose (3%).

Planting will occur between the months of November and March, with a preference for the early part of this season to allow plants to establish. Planting will be in two staggered rows (approximately 40 centimeters apart, with between four and sic whips per metre). The plants will be protected from browsing by a spiral guard and will be supported by a cane.

6.2.8 Birds It is recommended that in order to provide an enhancement for nesting birds new bird boxes be erected at the site or wider area within the client’s ownership in order to

provide new nesting opportunities. Two Schwegler 2H (or similar) and two Schwegler 1B (or similar) would provide a suitable enhancement for nesting birds.

6.2.9 Reptiles It is recommended that two log piles are built in the gardens of the new properties (Figure 16). These will provide shelter for reptiles and other wildlife. The log piles will be constructed by hand by an ecologist.

Figure 16: Log pile

6.3 Conclusion The barns support roosting bats and breeding birds and the on-site grassland contains a small population of slow-worm. Provided that the ecological recommendations in this report are adhered to, the development proposals will accord with current legislation for protected species. The enhancement measures within this report have the potential to provide net gain biodiversity and accord with all relevant national and local planning policy in relation to ecology (see Section 2.0).

6.4 Updating Site Survey Given the mobility of animals and the potential for colonisation of the site, it is recommended that an updating walkover of the site is undertaken prior to the development commencing should this not occur within 12 months of the date of the survey.

Map 1 Site Location Plan

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Map 1 - Site Location Plan

Client: Re-Format LLP

Date: June 2017

Status: Final

KEY Site Boundary

Scale at A4: 1:10,000 0 40 80 160 240 320 Metres ±

© This map is the copyright of Ecological Survey & Assessment Ltd. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017 Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited. Norman Farm, Burghclere – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

Map 2 Bat Emergence Locations

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Map 2 - Bat Emergence Locations

Client: Re-Format LLP

Date: June 2017

Status: Final

KEY Buildings Surveyed Common Pipistrelle Emergence Barbastelle Emergence Unconfirmed Bat Species Emergence

ECOSA Ltd., Ten Hogs House, Manor Farm Offices, Flexford Road, North Baddesley, Hampshire SO52 9DF Telephone: 02380 261065 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ecosa.co.uk

© This map is the copyright of Ecological Survey & Assessment Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited. Norman Farm, Burghclere – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

Map 3 Bat Mitigation

ADJOINING PROPERTY Tall hedges (around post + wire fence) Norman Farm WELL STREET Shrubs

Barn B Tree NORMAN FARM, BURGHCLERE 160800 BARN B Stone path Barns Tennis Court Terrace decking ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Entrance pathway (flagstone paving) BARN A Road

447300 (resin bound gravel) 120.9m Parking space Map 3 - Bat Mitigation (stone cobbles) Brick flint wall (1300 mm high) Client: Re-format LLP Dwarf wall Date: June 2017 Status: Final (450 mm high) Apple Tree Key: Cottage Fence West Elevation (Timber close Bat Box Hastridge border 1800 mm) Cottage BINS Modified Roof Tile (void access) Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432 Location Plan Location Plan scale 1:1250 Forecourt Eaves Access to Void Licence number 100022432 WELL STREET 0 121.5 252 373.5 504 625.5 Dedicated Void Site boundary SHED Aditioning land owned Roosting Units by the applicant

SHED

East Elevation N this drawing is the copyright of Re-Format LLP and drawn by date status stage revisions For information on the proposed may not be copied, altered or reproduced in any way project title BARN B or passed to a third party without written authority. 01 01-Mar-17 First Issue All dimensions subject to site survey and site MK 29-Mar-17 Norman Farm PLANNING S0 materials please refer to the verification. Do not scale for construction ©

02 BARN28-Mar-17 A Planning Issue Scale bar added Design and Acces Statement www.re-format.co.uk checked by scale at A3 03 28-Mar-17 Planning Issue General amendments mail@ re-format.co.uk document title drawing number revision 16140-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-4003 + 44 (0)1420 82131 NA 1:100 Barn B Proposed East and West 03 0 1 2 3 4 5m Elevations

0 2.51 25 7.53 104 125.5 m Site Plan scale 1:250

this drawing is the copyright of Re-Format LLP and revisions may not be copied, altered or reproduced in any way drawn by date project title status stage or passed to a third party without written authority. 01 01-Mar-17 First Issue All dimensions subject to site survey and site MK 29-Mar-17 Norman Farm PLANNING S0 verification. Do not scale for construction ©

02 28-Mar-17 Planning Issue Scale bar, North point added www.re-format.co.uk checked by scale at A3 03 28-Mar-17 Planning Issue General amendments mail@ re-format.co.uk document title drawing number revision 16140-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0001 + 44 (0)1420 82131 NA 1:250, 1:1250 Proposed Site Plan 03

Bat mitigation features not to scale

Basemap reproduced from Re-formatt LLP Proposed Elevation Plans - Rev.3 dated March 2017 West Elevation East Elevation

ECOSA Ltd., Ten Hogs House, Manor Farm Offices, Flexford Road, North Baddesley, Hampshire SO52 9DF Telephone: 02380 261065 Email: [email protected] North Elevation South Elevation Web: www.ecosa.co.uk

this drawing is the copyright of Re-Format LLP and drawn by date status stage revisions For information on the proposed may not be copied, altered or reproduced in any way project title or passed to a third party without written authority. 01 01-Mar-17 First Issue All dimensions subject to site survey and site MK 29-Mar-17 Norman Farm PLANNING S0 © This map is the copyright of Ecological Survey & Assessment Ltd. materials please refer to the verification. Do not scale for construction ©

02 28-Mar-17 Planning Issue Scale bar added Design and Acces Statement www.re-format.co.uk checked by scale at A3 Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited. 03 28-Mar-17 Planning Issue General amendments mail@ re-format.co.uk document title drawing number revision 16140-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-4001 + 44 (0)1420 82131 NA 1:100 Barn A Proposed Elevations 03 0 1 2 3 4 5m Norman Farm, Burghclere – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

Appendix 1 Proposed Site Plan

STREET ADJOINING PROPERTY 1.2m hedges (around post + wire fence) Norman Farm WELL 1.2m high post and rail fence set within a mixed native 160800 hedge hedges

Shrubs Barns Tennis Court Planting

Existing Tree

447300 BARN A 120.9m Proposed Tree 3

Stone path

Terrace decking

Apple Tree Entrance pathway Cottage (flagstone paving)

Hastridge Road (resin bound gravel) Cottage

1 Parking space STREET (stone cobbles) 2.4 Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432m Location Plan Fence Licence number 100022432 (Timber close Existing site entrance as WELL Forecourt approved scheme ref:57273 border 1800 mm) Location Plan scale 1:1250 2 SHED 0 121.5 252 373.5 504 625.5 Visibility splays Site boundary 1 Bin collection area Aditioning land owned by the applicant 2 Bin storage area 2 Existing concrete SHED 3 block wall removed

N BARN B

0 21.5 25 73.5 104 125.5 m Site Plan scale 1:250

this drawing is the copyright of Re-Format LLP and revisions may not be copied, altered or reproduced in any way drawn by date project title status stage or passed to a third party without written authority. 01 3/1/2017 First Issue All dimensions subject to site survey and site MK 6/16/2017 Norman Farm PLANNING S0 verification. Do not scale for construction ©

02 3/28/2017 Planning Issue Scale bar, North point added www.re-format.co.uk 03 3/28/2017 Planning Issue General amendments [email protected] checked by scale at A3 document title drawing number revision 16140-RFT-00-XX-DR-A-0001 +44 (0)1420 82131 NA 1:250, 1:1250 Proposed Site Plan 04 04 6/16/2017 Planning Issue General amendments Norman Farm, Burghclere – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st June 2017

Appendix 2 Sites Designated for Nature Conservation

Statutory Sites

Internationally Designated Sites - Ramsar Sites, Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas

Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) form a network of protected sites across the European Union called Natura 2000 sites. In the United Kingdom the primary legislative protection is afforded to these sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Ramsar sites are designated as wetlands of international importance which are afforded similar legislative protection to Natura 2000 sites.

SACs are sites which support intentionally important habitats or internationally important assemblages or populations of species. SPAs are designated for supporting internationally important populations of birds listed in the annexes of the Birds Directive. SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites are generally also designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) there is a legal requirement that competent authorities, such as local planning authorities, need to consider whether plans or projects are likely to have a significant adverse effect on Natura 2000 sites or Ramsar sites, either alone, or in combination with other plans or projects. In the event that a likely significant effect cannot be ruled out, on the basis of objective information, then the competent authority must undertake an “Appropriate Assessment” to fully assess the plan or project against the site’s conservation objectives. Unless certain defined derogation tests can be met, the competent authority may not authorise nor undertake any plan or project which adversely affects the integrity of a Natura 2000 site or Ramsar site.

Nationally Designated Sites – Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) receive legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Such sites are designated to protect specific areas of biological or geological interest of national importance. Such sites also generally receive strict protection through the planning system.

National Nature Reserves (NNR) are also usually designated as SSSIs and are specifically managed for their wildlife value. They receive legal protection through the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As with SSSIs, these sites generally receive strict protection through the planning system.

Locally Designated Sites – Local Nature Reserves

Local Nature Reserves (LNR) are designated by local authorities under the National Park and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. These are generally designated not only for their local wildlife value but also for education, scientific and recreational purposes. These sites generally receive protection from development through the planning system.

Appendix 3 Assessment Criteria for Bats

Criteria used to Assess Potential Suitability of the Site for Bats19

The criteria used to assess the suitability of roosting and foraging/commuting habitat for bats is based on industry guidelines and outlined in Table 520.

Table 5: Criteria used to Assess Suitability of Roosting and Foraging/Commuting Habitat for Bats

Suitability Description of roosting habitats Commuting and foraging habitats

High A structure or tree with one or more Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well potential roost sites that are obviously connected to the wider landscape that is likely suitable for use by larger numbers of to be used regularly by commuting bats such bats on a more regular basis and as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of potentially for longer periods of time trees and woodland edge. due to their size, shelter, protection, High-quality habitat that is well connected to conditions and surrounding habitat. the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed parkland.

Site is close to and connected to known roosts.

Moderate A structure of tree with one or more Continuous habitat connected to the wider potential roost sites that could be used landscape that could be used by bats for by bats due to their size, shelter, commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or protection, conditions and surrounding linked back gardens. habitat but unlikely to support a roost Habitat that is connected to the wider of high conservation status. landscape that could be used by bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water.

Low A structure with one or more potential Habitat that could be used by small numbers of roost sites that could be used by commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerows individual bats or un-vegetated stream, but isolated (i.e. not opportunistically/structure that does very well connected to the surrounding

19 Table adapted from Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Third Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London

20 Table adapted from Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Third Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London

not provide enough space, shelter, landscape by other habitat). protection, appropriate conditions Suitable, but isolated, habitat that could be and/or suitable surrounding habitat to used by small numbers of foraging bats such be used on a regular basis or by larger as a lone tree or a patch or scrub. numbers of bats (ie. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation).

A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roost features but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential.

Negligible Negligible habitat features on site Negligible habitat features on site likely to be likely to be used by roosting bats. used by commuting or foraging bats.

Appendix 4 Protected Species Legislation

Bats

All UK bat species are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. They are afforded full protection under Section 9(4) of the Act and Regulation 41 of the Regulations. These make it an offence to:

. Deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal;

. Deliberately disturb any such animal, including in particular any disturbance which is likely:

. To impair its ability to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young;

. To impair its ability to hibernate or migrate;

. To affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of that species;

. Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any such animal;

. Intentionally or recklessly disturb any of these animals while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection; or

. Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that any of these animals uses for shelter or protection.

In addition, five British bat species are listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. These are:

. Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum;

. Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros;

. Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii;

. Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus; and

. Greater mouse-eared bat Myotis myotis.

In certain circumstances where these species are found the Directive requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) by EC member states to ensure that their populations are maintained at a favourable conservation status. Outside SACs, the level of legal protection that these species receive is the same as for other bat species.

Breeding Birds

With certain exceptions, all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected by Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Therefore, it is an offence, to:

. Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;

. Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built; or

. Intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.

These offences do not apply to hunting of birds listed in Schedule 2 subject to various controls. Bird species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act receive further protection, thus for these species it is also an offence to:

. Intentionally or recklessly disturb any bird while it is nest building, or is at a nest containing eggs or young; or

. Intentionally or recklessly disturb the dependent young of any such bird.

Reptiles

The four widespread species of reptile that are native to Britain, namely common or viviparous lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow-worm Anguis fragilis, adder Vipera berus and grass snake Natrix natrix, are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are afforded limited protection under Section 9 of this Act. This makes it an offence to:

. Intentionally kill or injure any of these species.

The remaining native species of British reptile (sand lizard Lacerta agilis and smooth snake Coronella austriaca) receive a higher level of protection via inclusion under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. They are afforded full protection under Section 9(4) of the Act and Regulation 41 of the Regulations (in England and Wales only) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The distribution of these species are restricted to only a few sites in England.