Ecological Assessment

Land North of Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey, Essex

On Behalf of:

Next plc and Trinity Hall

May 2018

Lucy Addison BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM, Dr Authors Graham Hopkins MCIEEM FRES and Darren Denmead BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM Technical Review Sean Crossland BSC BCA MCIEEM

Report Status Final Date of Issue 15th May 2018

Contents 1.0 Introduction and Aims ...... 1 2.0 Methods ...... 3 3.0 Results ...... 6 4.0 Evaluation ...... 24 5.0 Conclusions ...... 28 6.0 References ...... 30

Tables Table 1: Statutory designated sites within 8km of the Site (European) and 5km from Site (UK) ...... 6 Table 2: Non-statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Site ...... 8 Table 3: Hedgerow Survey Summary Results ...... 10 Table 4: Bat records held by data suppliers (EFC, 2018) ...... 11 Table 5: Activity Survey Summary (by season) ...... 12 Table 6: Activity Survey Summary (by stop / walk) ...... 12 Table 7: Static Detector Survey Summary (2017 - 2018) ...... 13 Table 8: Trees on site surveyed for roosting bats...... 14 Table 9: Status of breeding and non-breeding birds within the Site ...... 16 Table 10: Hazel Dormouse Survey Summary ...... 18 Table 11: ISIS Summary of Data Search ...... 18 Table 12: Assemblage Type Associations of Widespread but Declining Moths ...... 19 Table 13: Descriptions of Sampling Stations ...... 20 Table 14: Number of species in Broad and Specific Assemblage Types ...... 20 Table 15: Occurrence of Specialist Species within Specific Assemblage Types ...... 21 Table 16: Reptile Species Recorded from Data Search ...... 22 Table 17: Weather Conditions and Reptile Species Recorded ...... 22 Table 18: Site value based on breeding bird community size (Fuller 1980) ...... 26 Table 19: Summary Evaluation of Site Features ...... 28

Appendices Appendix 1 Site Boundary Plan Appendix 2 Proposed Layout Phase 1 and Parameter Plan Phase 2 Appendix 3 Phase 1 Habitat Plan Showing Study Area and Indicative Site Boundary Appendix 4 Legislation Appendix 5 Survey Methods Appendix 6 Bats Survey Results Appendix 7 Badger Survey Results

Appendix 8 Hazel Dormouse Tube Locations Appendix 9 Invertebrate Sampling Stations and Survey Results Appendix 10 Reptile Refugia Locations Appendix 11 Hedgerow Survey Results Appendix 12 Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats

1.0 Introduction and Aims

1.1 Southern Ecological Solutions Ltd. (SES) was commissioned by Next plc and Trinity Hall to undertake Phase 2 ecology surveys and assessments at Land North of Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey in Essex (the site). A site boundary plan is provided in Appendix 1.

1.2 The development proposals for the site (the ‘Development’) are subject to a hybrid planning application being submitted to Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) and are defined as:

“Hybrid: full planning application for erection of 1 no. warehouse (Class B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking and landscaping and associated works including new junction to A121; outline planning application for up to 22,733m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA) of employment floorspace (Classes B1(c), B2 and B8) with all matters reserved.”

1.3 Phase 1 of the Development is submitted in detail and Phase 2 is submitted in outline with all matters reserved. The Development would provide up to 80,000m2 GIA of employment floorspace. Appendix 2 provides details of the proposed layout for Phase 1 and the development Parameter plan for Phase 2.

Site Description

1.4 The site extends to 12.01ha and bordered by the M25 Motorway to the north and agricultural land to the south, with the A121 dissecting the southern part of the Site east/west. Within the wider landscape, Greater London dominates to the south and west, agricultural land to the north and Epping Forest to the east. The Site is in agricultural use and is divided by a hedgerow into two fields.

Zone of Influence

1.5 The ‘zone of influence’ has been established as 2km from the site boundary for records of notable and protected species as well as non-statutory designated sites, 5km for non-statutory designated sites and 8km for statutory designated sites. In addition, the boundary used for the protected species surveys is shown in Appendix 3 and is hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’. The results reflect this wider site boundary.

Phase 2 Surveys and Assessments

1.6 Following an initial Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2013 and an update in 2017, the following surveys and assessments were recommended:

Habitats

• Hedgerows.

Protected and Notable Species

• Badger; • Bats – roosting (including emergence) and activity; • Birds – breeding and wintering; • Hazel Dormouse;

• Invertebrate; • Reptiles; and • Small and medium-sized mammals.

1.7 The aims of these surveys were to:

• Determine the value of habitats on Site and within the study area; • Determine the usage and value of the Site and within the study area for protected and notable species; • Assess the value of the Site and within the study area and potential direct and indirect impacts the proposed development may have on habitats and species; and • Inform the impact assessment and mitigation strategy within the Environmental statement.

1.8 This report summarises the results of the Phase 2 surveys and assessments. All features, including statutory and non-statutory sites, habitats and protected and notable features are evaluated using the evidence from the desk study, field surveys and relevant literature.

1.9 The assessment within this report are made in accordance with relevant wildlife legislation and planning policy such as Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment (DCLG, 2012), current policies within the Combined Policies with the Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) document (EFDC, 2008) and draft policies relating to the new, draft Local Plan (EFDC, 2016).

Personnel

1.10 All surveys were undertaken following best practice guidance. Other than those listed in section 2, all surveys were undertaken or supervised by suitably qualified ecologist Lucy Addison BSc (Hons) MSc Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, Grad CIEEM) and overseen by suitably qualified ecologist Sean Crossland MSc Full Member of CIEEM (MCIEEM).

2.0 Methods

Desk Study

2.1 A search for European designated sites was undertaken up to 8km from the study area, via the MAGIC online spatial data resource (magic.defra.gov.uk), including those listed on Schedules within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

2.2 A radius of 5km, or within the Natural England Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) from the study area for UK designated sites via the MAGIC online spatial data resource (magic.defra.gov.uk), including those listed on Schedules within; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 Section 21.

2.3 A data search was requested from the Essex Field Club (EFC) in April 2013 with the results being updated in April 2018. The data search included records of all protected and notable species within 2km of the study area boundary, including those listed as priority species on Schedule 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, previously Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species / habitats; those listed on other wildlife legislation for example Badgers (detailed within Chapter 3, Results), and other species of conservation concern (e.g. Nationally Scarce invertebrates).

2.4 A data search was requested from Essex Wildlife Trust (EWT) in April 2018 for non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site boundary.

2.5 Maps of the site and wider area, using the MAGIC online spatial data resource and aerial photographs on Google Earth (Google Inc., 2011), were examined to determine the possible habitats present on, and adjacent to the Site, and their context in the surrounding landscape, searching in particular for waterbodies, watercourses and other landscape features that may be of ecological significance to protected species, notably mobile species such as bats and birds.

Field surveys

2.6 The following is a summary of the methods employed during field surveys; full details of each survey method are provided in Appendix 5. The entire site allocation was mapped and surveyed as the site boundary within the study area was not determined until recently.

Habitats and Flora

2.7 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey using JNCC (2010) guidelines was undertaken by suitably qualified ecologist Sean Crossland in October 2013 and updated by Lucy Addison on the 16th August 2017.

2.8 The hedgerow survey was undertaken on all hedgerows on site in October 2017 in relation to the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Species making up the hedgerow and within 1m of the hedgerow were identified. The aims of the survey were to:

• Produce a summary description of the hedgerow diversity, management and condition. • Assess whether the hedgerows fall under the criteria of ‘important’ under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

2.9 Botanical nomenclature followed New Flora of the British Isles by Stace (2010).

Badger

2.10 A survey for badger Meles meles was undertaken in August 2017 by Lucy Addison across the entire site as well as off-site habitats with public access, searching for evidence of badgers using standard guidelines for classifying badger setts (Harris et al., 1989) and categorising entrance holes (Natural England, 2009).

Bats

2.11 All surveys were undertaken with reference to Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Guidelines (Collins, 2016).

Activity Surveys

2.12 Bat activity surveys were undertaken over one transect once per season between August 2017 and May 2018. See Appendix 5 for personnel on each survey and Appendix 6 for a plan showing the transect location. Data was analysed using BatSound 4.2 and AnalookW software.

Automated Surveys

2.13 Static bat detectors, both SM2+ (Wildlife Acoustics Ltd.) and Anabat units, were used to record bat activity over at least five consecutive nights once per season between August 2017 and May 2018 at various locations within the Site. See Appendix 6 for a plan showing the automated detector locations. Data was analysed using BatSound 4.2 and AnalookW software.

Tree Scoping Surveys

2.14 All trees on site or immediately adjacent to site were inspected by experienced ecologists Lucy Addison and Kate Mann over a number of days in August 2017. Features with potential to support roosting bats (and/or barn owls) were recorded and an assessment was made as to the potential value for roosting bats following best practice guidance (Collins, 2016).

Emergence Surveys

2.15 Emergence surveys were undertaken on trees identified to have moderate or high bat roosting potential. These surveys were undertaken throughout August and September 2017 by a number of field ecologists, following best practice guidance (Collins, 2016). See Appendix 5 for full methods and Appendix 6 for locations of trees surveyed.

Birds

2.16 A breeding and non-breeding bird survey (WBS) was undertaken following generic bird survey methods provided by Gilbert et al. (1998). The site was visited twice through the passage period in October 2017; two visits through the wintering period (December 2017 to January 2018) and three visits in the breeding period (April – May 2018).

2.17 The survey methods were considered appropriate to record the range of species potentially present on the site. The breeding bird survey was completed in early May (three visits) and the lack of a fourth survey in June or July is not considered to be a significant limitation given the range of habitats and location of the site. The weather conditions on all visits were appropriate for observing and recording breeding and no-breeding birds.

2.18 Surveys were undertaken by Darren Denmead BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM and Stephen Parr BSc (Hons) MCIEEM in suitable weather conditions, and during the morning after the dawn period when bird singing intensity tends to be high but stable (Bibby et al., 2000). Surveys covered all of the habitats within the site and included a check of the boundary habitats.

Hazel Dormouse

2.19 A total of 100 nest tubes were installed across the Site on 16th August 2017 in suitable habitats, by hazel dormouse licence holder Kate Mann (2017-27756-CLS-CLS), based on current guidance (Bright et al., 2006; Natural England, 2011). Nest tube locations are found in Appendix 8. Presence / likely absence surveys were undertaken monthly between August – October 2017 by Kate Mann and Rachel Geller BSc (Hons), to meet the minimum index score of 20 points as per current guidance.

Invertebrates

2.20 Three survey visits were undertaken of the site: 17th August 2017, 4th September 2017 and 28th September 2017. Survey work was by Dr. Graham Hopkins FRES with identifications by him and Dr. Jit Thacker.

2.21 The study area covered a wider area than the Site boundary, with three sampling stations within this broader area but outside of the Site boundary, and two within the Site boundary. The broad sampling protocol followed the protocols relevant to the Invertebrate Species-habitat Information Service (ISIS) of Natural England as described by Drake et al. (2007) and consistent with the proposals of English Nature (2005). The sampling was undertaken at five sampling stations for terrestrial species on each visit, with a 40-minute timed sample.

2.22 The data are analysed using the ISIS package and the Colin Plant Associates (2006) criteria are used as the basis for site evaluation. Species of conservation concern are referred to as either Nationally Scarce (mostly defined as species in <100 10-grid squares nationally) or Species of Principal Importance (defined as those on Section 41 of the NERC Act).

Reptiles

2.23 A seven-visit presence and likely absence survey was undertaken during ‘suitable’ days for reptile activity by Rachel Geller BSc (Hons) and Kate Mann, experienced reptile surveyors over September and October 2017. This survey methodology followed best practice guidance (Froglife, 1999; Gent & Gibson, 2003). See Appendix 10 for a plan showing the location of reptile refugia.

Small and Medium-sized Mammals

2.24 Records, observations and / or field signs of small and medium-sized mammal species, especially those species listed as priority species under S41 of the NERC Act 2006, including hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, harvest mouse Micromys minutus and brown hare Lepus europaeus, were collected during survey visits for other protected species.

3.0 Results

Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

International Designated Sites

3.1 There two sites of International importance within 10km of the Site (Table 1): Epping Forest SAC and SSSI, which is designated for its extensive ancient woodlands, especially; beech Fagus sylvatica forest and associated rare invertebrates. This site is located 0.75km to the east of the site.

3.2 Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar is an area of former gravel pits and located 2.1km to the north of the site. The qualifying features of the SPA include wintering bittern Botaurus stellaris, gadwall Anas strepera and shoveler Anas clypeata. There are three component SSSI of the SPA and four of the Ramsar, one of which, Turnford and Chestnut Pits SSSI, is located 2.1km from the site.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

3.3 Waltham Abbey SSSI is located 1.8km northwest of site and adjacent to Lee Valley SPA; the site consists of damp alder Alnus glutinosa woodland, historically coppiced for gunpowder manufacture and supports the largest heronry in Essex.

3.4 Cornmill Stream and Old River Lea SSSI is also present 1.4km north of the site and adjacent to Waltham Abbey SSSI. Its freshwater habitat supports one of the most diverse invertebrate faunas in Essex and is one of only two locations in Essex for the white-legged damselfly Platycnemis pennipes.

3.5 Chingford Reservoirs SSSI is located 1.7km southwest of site and is site for wintering waterbirds, particularly shoveler and great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus.

3.6 There are no Local Nature Reserves (LNR) within 5km of the Site.

Table 1: Statutory designated sites within 8km of the Site (European) and 5km from Site (UK)

Distance Area Site Designation Description Direction (ha) from Site The SAC is designated for its Atlantic acidophilous beech forests in the 1631 (SAC) north-eastern part of the habitat’s UK range. Although the epiphytes Epping SAC, SSSI at this site have declined, largely because of air pollution, it remains 0.75km east Forest 1,728 important for a range of rare species, including the moss Zygodon (SSSI) forsteri. The long history of pollarding, and resultant large number of

Distance Area Site Designation Description Direction (ha) from Site veteran trees, ensures that the site is also rich in fungi and dead-wood invertebrates.

The SSSI is one of only a few remaining large-scale examples of ancient wood-pasture in lowland Britain and has retained habitats of high nature conservation value including ancient semi-natural woodland, old grassland plains and scattered wetland. The semi- natural woodland is particularly extensive, forming one of the largest coherent blocks in the country. Most is characterised by groves of overmature pollards and these exemplify all three of the main wood- pasture types found in Britain: beech-oak, hornbeam-oak and mixed oak. The Forest plains are also a major feature and contain a variety of unimproved acid grasslands which have become uncommon elsewhere in Essex and the London area. In addition, Epping Forest supports a nationally outstanding assemblage of invertebrates, a major amphibian interest and an exceptional breeding bird community. Located to the north-east of London, where a series of wetlands and reservoirs occupy about 20 km of the valley. The site comprises embanked water supply reservoirs, sewage treatment lagoons and former gravel pits that support a range of man-made, semi-natural SPA and Lee Valley 451 and valley bottom habitats. These wetland habitats support wintering 2.1km north Ramsar wildfowl, in particular gadwall Anas strepera and shoveler Anas clypeata, which occur in numbers of European importance. Areas of reedbed within the site also support significant numbers of wintering bittern Botaurus stellaris. The Turnford and Cheshunt Pits SSSI includes ten former gravel pits in the Lee Valley Regional Park. The pits range in age from North Metropolitan Pit which is among the oldest pits to Hooks Marsh Lake which was not excavated until the 1970s, and cover a span of over 40 years. Because of the profusion of pits and islands, several of the pits Turnford have extensive shorelines. Also included in the site are all the and SSSI 174 associated areas of marsh, grassland, ruderal herbs, scrub and 2.4km north Chesthunt woodland; part of the Small River Lee; and a further water body, Hall Pits Marsh Scrape, which was constructed specifically for use by waterfowl. The pits are of national importance for wintering gadwall and shoveler. The site is of regional importance for wintering Coot Fulica atra and is locally important for wintering snipe Gallinago gallinago and bittern Botaurus stellaris. An area of alder Alnus glutinosa woodland on damp alluvial soils overlying fluvio-glacial gravel in the valley of the River Lee. The woodland supports the largest heronry in Essex. The present canopy Waltham SSSI 34 has largely regenerated from coppice stools and is dominated by 1.8km north Abbey alder, with sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, ash Fraxinus excelsior, poplar Populus sp. and crack willow Salix fragilis. Elder Sambucus nigra and blackthorn Prunus spinosa are the main shrub species. The site supports an outstanding assemblage of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata); 18 species have been recorded, including two notable scarce species. It is one of only two known localities in Essex Cornmill for the uncommon and nationally declining white-legged damselfly Stream and SSSI 25 Platycnemis pennipes. The slow-moving streams support a rich and 1.6km north Old River varied aquatic and marginal flora. Associated with this habitat is one Lea of the richest gastropod molluscan faunas in the county including two vulnerable species of freshwater snail, and other invertebrates including a rare sawfly and a rare soldier fly. The Chingford Reservoirs are one of the major wintering grounds for wildfowl and wetland birds in the London area and hold nationally important numbers of some species. The reservoirs also form a moult Chingford refuge for large populations of wildfowl during the late summer SSSI 387 2.1km south Reservoirs months. The site encompasses a series of drinking water storage basins constructed on the floor of the Lee Valley during the early and mid-part of the twentieth century. The two basins comprising the northern King George V Reservoir are the shallowest of London's 7

Distance Area Site Designation Description Direction (ha) from Site larger reservoirs and, together with the William Girling Reservoir to the south, they comprise some of the most extensive and undisturbed open water habitat in the London area. These features attract a variety of migratory wildfowl, gulls and other wetland birds in large numbers. During the winter months the reservoirs regularly support nationally important populations of shoveler and great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus. Home LNR 2 Mosaic of woodland, scrub and acid grassland. 4km east Mead Linders LNR 4 A mixture of ancient woodland, scrub, grassland and ponds. 5km south Field Roding Roding Valley Meadows form one of the largest continuous areas of SSSI and Valley 65 (LNR) species-rich grassland in Essex, comprising traditionally managed hay 5.2km south LNR Meadows meadows, flood meadows and marsh.

Non-statutory Designated Sites

3.7 There are 16 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 2km of the site boundary (Table 2).

Table 2: Non-statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Site

Distance and Size Selection Criteria Site Name Direction from UKBAP Priority Habitats (ha) Site Habitats Species Important Gunpowder Park 43.5 0.6km west Brownfield Sites Post-industrial Sites Invertebrate Assemblages Lowland Mixed Deciduous Thomson’s Wood 1.8 1.2km south Woodland Ancient Woodland Sites

Other Priority Habitat Woodland Types on non- Sewardstone / 29.1 1.3km south Wet Woodland ancient Sites (Wet Osier Marshes Woodland), Small-component Mosaics Ancient Woodland Sites, Lowland Mixed Deciduous Oxley’s Wood Lowland Mixed Deciduous 11 1.3km east Woodland Complex Woodland, Hedgerows on Non-Ancient Sites, Hedgerows and Green Lanes Ancient Woodland Sites, Lowland Mixed Deciduous Lowland Mixed Deciduous Conybury Wood 7.5 1.5km east Woodland Woodland on Nonancient Sites Ancient Woodland Sites, Hedgerows, Lowland Hedgerows and Green Lanes, Carroll’s Farm 26.7 1.5km south Meadows, Lowland Mixed Lowland Meadows, Other Complex Deciduous Woodland Neutral Grasslands, Small- component Mosaics Wood-pasture and Lowland Mixed Deciduous Parkland, Hedgerows, Woodland on Non-Ancient Warlies Park 105.7 1.6km north Lowland Mixed Deciduous Sites and Wood-pasture and Woodland Parkland Lowland Mixed Deciduous Lowland Dry Acid Grassland, Gravel Hill / Hill Woodland on Non-ancient 1.6 1.6km south Lowland Mixed Deciduous Beach Sites, Heathland Woodland and Acid Grassland

Distance and Size Selection Criteria Site Name Direction from UKBAP Priority Habitats (ha) Site Habitats Species Lowland Mixed Deciduous Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland on Non-Ancient Cobbin’s Brook 27.3 1.7km north Woodland, Hedgerows, Sites, Lowland Lowland Meadows Meadows, Rivers, Wildlife Corridors Oak Farm 1.5 1.7km south Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Heathland and Acid Grassland Grassland High Beach 0.4 1.8km south Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Heathland and Acid Grassland Churchyard Lowland Mixed Deciduous Aldergrove Wood 4.5 1.8km south Ancient Woodland Sites Woodland Ancient Woodland Sites, Lowland Mixed Deciduous Green Lane / Lowland Mixed Deciduous 3.6 1.9km east Woodland Brambly Shaw Woodland, Hedgerows on Non-ancient Sites, Hedgerows and Green Lanes Lowland Mixed Deciduous Small-component Mosaics, Lippitts Hill Scrub 3.8 1.9km south Woodland Wildlife Corridors

Coastal and Floodplain Vascular Northfield Marsh 7 1.9km south River Floodplain Grazing Marsh Plants Day’s Farm 3.2 1.9km south Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Heathland and Acid Grassland Paddocks

Habitats

3.8 There are four different habitat types found within the site and on the boundaries, including arable fields, hedgerows, scattered trees and small areas of set-aside (Appendix 3). In addition, an old orchard is present in the west of the wider study area. Notable habitats and those of principal importance (section 41 of the NERC Act) within the study area are discussed below:

• Arable field margins • Hedgerows • Mature Trees • Semi-improved grassland • Orchard

Arable Field Margins

3.9 The site is dominated by arable fields, all of which have between a 0.5m-5m buffer around them. The buffer strips are predominantly grasses, with some arable weeds, including grasses such as false oat- grass Arrhenatherum elatius and cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata. The margins are utilized by a large number of small mammals (voles and mice) but are not considered a NERC Act habitat of Principal Importance due to their management and lack of diversity.

Hedgerows

3.10 The hedgerows on site vary between species-poor (largely dominated of hawthorn, blackthorn and bramble) to species-rich hedgerows (containing semi-mature/mature trees such as pedunculate oak and ash). These hedgerows are considered to be NERC Act habitats of Principal Importance as well as

an Essex priority habitat, some of which fall under the category of ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 in respect to wildlife and landscape criteria (see Table 3).

3.11 A hedgerow survey during 2018 confirmed that three of the 12 hedgerows on site are classified as ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria. A summary table has been provided (Table 3) and a map of hedgerows can be found in Appendix 11. In addition, a number of the hedgerows on site are important for a number of protected species, for example bats, birds, hedgehogs etc. in particular the southern and northern hedgerows, as well as the hedgerow dividing phase 1 and phase 2.

Table 3: Hedgerow Survey Summary Results

Hedgerow Adjacent a Public Average No. of No. of Associated Important under the ID Footpath or Bridleway Woody Species Features Hedgerow Regulations 1 No 4 2 No 2 No 5 2 No 3 Yes 5 3 Yes 4 No 5 2 No 5 Yes 3.83 2 No 6 Yes 6 4 Yes 7 No 4 2 No 8 No 6 2 No 9 No 5.5 4 Yes 10 No 6 2 No 11 No 4.33 3 No 12 No 4 3 No

Mature Trees

3.12 There are a six mature trees on site (based on plan ref. 11403/PO2) with a further three just outside the site boundary, which are considered valuable for biodiversity due to their size, age, species, location or features valuable to wildlife such as dead wood. This habitat type does not fall under a NERC Act priority habitat but is considered an important habitat in its own right due to its value for biodiversity.

Semi-improved Grassland

3.13 In the north of Phase 1 is a set aside field with semi-improved grassland. The grassland consists of red and white clover Trifolium pratense and T. repens, bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, goat’s rue Galega officinalis. This grassland set-aside is not considered a NERC Act priority habitat due to its general lack of species diversity and management.

Orchard

3.14 Although outside of the proposed development boundary, an old orchard is present within the west of the study area, consisting of Apple Malus sp. and Pear Pyrus sp. trees. The habitat type is likely to fall under the NERC priority habitat of principal importance.

Rare and Invasive Plant Species

3.15 There were no recorded protected or rare species present on site protected under the WCA 1981.

3.16 There were no recorded invasive species, listed under the WCA 1981, present on site.

Badger

3.17 The survey showed that badger appear to be utilizing the site for low-level foraging and commuting purposes only with only low numbers of latrines, mammal paths, snuffle marks and claw marks observed across the site (see Appendix 7). The majority of field signs were within Phase 2 of the development. No active or disused setts were found on site.

Bats

Desk Study

3.18 Records from the data search showed records for a number of bat species, as shown in Table 4 below. The habitat on site is considered to have the potential to support any of these species in a roosting, commuting and / or foraging capacity.

Table 4: Bat records held by data suppliers (EFC, 2018)

Species Closest Distance from Total No. of Date of Most Site (km) Records Recent Record Brown Long-eared Bat 1.2 35 2017 Common Pipistrelle 0.9 93 2017 Daubenton's Bat 1.9 27 2015 Leisler's Bat 2.1 3 2014 Long-eared bats 2.5 3 2014 Myotis bat sp. 3.9 2 2017 Nathusius's Pipistrelle 1.8 11 2014 Natterer's Bat 2.2 24 2015 Noctule Bat 2.2 31 2017 Pipistrelle species 1.3 24 2014 Serotine 3.1 10 2015 Soprano Pipistrelle 0.8 124 2017 Western Barbastelle 3.9 14 2013

Activity and Static Surveys

3.19 A total of three confirmed species with a possible five were recorded during the activity surveys, with pipistrelles being the most common species encountered. In addition, notable species (for rarity) included; Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri and possible Leisler’s recorded during summer and autumn surveys, approximately 30 minutes after sunset along the southern boundary and the middle hedgerow between phases 1 and 2. See Tables 5 and 6 for results and Appendix 6 for the raw data.

Table 5: Activity Survey Summary (by season)

Summer 2017 (August Dusk) Autumn 2017 (October Dusk) Spring 2018 (April Dusk) Total

Common Pipistrelle 12 3 2 17

Soprano Pipistrelle 10 2 1 13

Pipistrelle sp.* 1 0 0 1

Leisler’s 0 1 0 1

Possible Leisler’s 3 1 0 4

Unidentified Bat * 2 0 0 2

Total 28 7 3 38 * Recordings too faint or of poor quality to identify to genus or species

3.20 Stop 5 along the southern boundary of the phase 1 parcel of land had the highest number of recordings, although this is still considered relatively low at only 5 passes. Bat activity on site was relatively low, with other areas of the site showing activity including the southern boundary of the whole study area, the hedgerow between phases 1 and 2, the boundaries of phases 1 and 2, and the north boundary of the westernmost arable field within the study area.

Table 6: Activity Survey Summary (by stop / walk)

Common Pipistrelle Soprano Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrelle Leisler’s Possible Leisler’s Unidentified sp. Total

W12-1 1 1 S1 0 W1-2 0 S2 0 W2-3 0 S3 1 1 W3-4 3 1 4 S4 0 W4-5 2 1 1 4 S5 1 4 1 6 W5-6 2 2 4 S6 1 3 W6-7 1 S7 1 1 W7-8 1 1 S8 0 W8-9 1 1 S9 1 1 2 W9-10 1 1 2 S10 0

Common Pipistrelle Soprano Pipistrelle sp. Pipistrelle Leisler’s Possible Leisler’s Unidentified sp. Total

W10-11 0 S11 3 3 W11-12 2 2 S12 2 2 Total 17 13 1 2 3 2 38

3.21 The static surveys recorded three confirmed different species, with a possibility for five. They recorded generally low numbers of bat passes on site. The highest number of registrations related to common pipistrelle, with two possible Nathusius’ registrations in October, three registrations from the Nyctalus’ family and a single registration from a ‘Big Bat’. See Table 7 for data and Appendix 6 for static detector locations.

Table 7: Static Detector Survey Summary (2017 - 2018)

Bat Species Autumn 2017 Spring Total Sept Oct April 2018 Common pipistrelle 95 6 139 240 Soprano pipistrelle 12 14 48 74 Pipistrelle sp. 0 0 3 3 Possible Nathusius’ 0 2 1 3 Nathusius’ Pipistrelle 0 0 4 4 Nyctalus sp. 1 2 5 8 Big bat sp. 1 0 0 1 Total 133 200 333

Tree Scoping Survey

3.22 All trees within the study area were inspected from ground level. A total of 21 trees were identified as having the potential to support roosting bats. Two trees were assessed as having high potential to support roosting bats and ten were assessed as having moderate potential to support roosting bats, and thus were subject to further survey or recommendations dependent on the likelihood of impacts from the development (see Appendix 6). In addition, nine trees on site qualify as having ‘Low’ roosting potential, i.e. “A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roosting features but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential” (Collins, 2016).

Tree Emergence / Re-entry Survey

3.23 Following ground inspections, emergence surveys were undertaken on ten trees with moderate or high potential for roosting bats within the study area (Table 8). A further two trees had moderate (T16) and high (T15) potential for roosting bats but were not considered likely to be impacted by the proposed development due to being off-site. No bats were seen to emerge or re-enter any of the features on the surveyed trees, however due to the nature of roost surveys on trees, all are still considered to have roosting potential for bats. Raw data, including weather, timings etc. can all be found in Appendix 6.

Table 8: Trees on site surveyed for roosting bats.

Tree Date Surveyed Location Tree Species ID 1 2 3 11.09.17 19.09.17 6 Old orchard in west of study area Apple (Dusk) (Dawn) 23.08.17 12.09.17 8 Middle hedgerow between Phases 1 and 2 Oak (Dusk) (Dawn) 23.08.17 29.08.17 19.09.17 9 Middle hedgerow between Phases 1 and 2 Oak (Dusk) (Dusk) (Dawn) 23.08.17 12.09.17 11 Middle hedgerow between Phases 1 and 2 Dead tree (Dusk) (Dawn) 23.08.17 12.09.17 13 North of Phase 1 Oak (Dusk) (Dawn) 23.08.17 12.09.17 17 North boundary of western most arable field Oak (Dusk) (Dawn) 11.09.17 19.09.17 18 Old orchard in west of study area Weeping Ash (Dusk) (Dawn) 12.09.17 18.09.17 19 Old orchard in west of study area Robinia (Dawn) (Dusk) 12.09.17 18.09.17 20 Old orchard in west of study area Ash (Dawn) (Dusk) 12.09.17 18.09.17 21 Old orchard in west of study area Ash (Dawn) (Dusk)

Birds

Data Search

3.24 There 3,249 records of 171 bird species were recorded for the 5-year period between 2012 and 2016; data for 2017 was not provided. This included 76 waterbird species associated with wetland habitats and unlikely to occur on the site. There were a large number of records of farmland species including barn owl Tyto alba, raptors and passerines including a wide range of finch species.

Field Survey

3.25 Thirty-two bird species were recorded during the survey (Table 9). 15 species were breeding and 28 non-breeding. Of these, 13 are considered notable species: eight on the BoCC red-list and five on the BoCC amber-list. The remaining species included 18 green-listed species and one non-native species. Seven species listed as BoCC are also listed under Section 41 (S41) of the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act.

3.26 Chaffinch (green-listed) was the most notable species with a flock of approximately 80 encountered during the final winter survey visit (02/01/2018) foraging along the hedgerows throughout the eastern section of the site. The eastern field acted as an important food source for wintering flocks of finches with the site supporting a maximum of approximately 100 chaffinch and greenfinch across four visits. These flocks also included additional noteworthy species such as brambling, linnet and reed bunting, albeit in smaller numbers.

3.27 The arable habitat within the site recorded a total of 14 records of skylark across the four visits. The breeding bird survey confirmed two likely territories with one in the western edge of the site. This was the most noteworthy species recorded within the arable fields. Additionally, a single wintering woodcock was recorded within the arable field margin on the second visit.

3.28 The majority of records were within the eastern and western fields in addition to the hedgerows that form the boundary of the site. The eastern field supported a large number of wintering finches, redwing and fieldfare. This related to the unharvested sunflower crop within the eastern field. These records are of birds considered to be common and widespread throughout the UK.

3.29 None of the species recorded are considered uncommon or rare at any geographical scale, with their red-listed and NERC species status due to widespread declines across their large UK geographic range: they are still widespread in the region, and the reasons for their declines are not considered to be driven by development impacts.

Table 9: Status of breeding and non-breeding birds within the Site

Site NERC No. Species Sch 1 BoCC S.41 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 Max Count Observation

1 Fieldfare Turdus pilaris  Red  - - 23 2 - - - 23 Hedgerows and trees 2 House sparrow Passer domesticus Red  - - - 1 - - - 1 Hedgerow 3 Linnet Carduelis cannabina Red  - 20 - 2 - 1 - 20 Arable 4 Redwing Turdus iliacus  Red  - - 10 8 - - - 10 Hedgerows and trees 5 Song thrush Turdus philomelos Red  - - - - 1 1 1 1 Hedgerow and fallow 6 Skylark Alauda arvensis Red  3 7 3 - - 1 1 7 Arable 7 Starling Sturnus vulgaris Red  - 14 - - - - 1 14 Foraging arable 8 Woodcock Scolopax rusticola Red  - 1 - - - - - 1 Arable margin 9 Dunnock Prunella modularis Amber  - - 3 3 2 - 2 3 Hedgerow and fallow 10 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Amber 2 - 1 - - - 2 Hunting arable margins 11 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Amber - - - - 1 - - 1 Flyover 12 Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Amber  - - 1 1 - - - 1 Hedgerow and fallow 13 Stock dove Columba oenas Amber 1 ------1 Flyover 14 Blackbird Turdus merula Green - 1 5 4 - - 2 5 Hedgerow and fallow 15 Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Green - - - - - 1 1 1 Hedgerow 16 Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus Green 4 2 9 4 2 2 2 9 Hedgerow and trees 17 Buzzard Buteo buteo Green 1 1 - - - - - 1 Flyover 18 Carrion crow Corvus corone Green - 2 - 2 - - 2 2 Foraging arable 19 Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Green 2 - 82 63 - - 1 82 Hedgerow 20 Goldcrest Regulus regulus Green - - 1 1 - - - 1 Hedgerow and trees

Site NERC No. Species Sch 1 BoCC S.41 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 Max Count Observation

21 Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Green - - 6 - 2 - - 6 Hedgerows and trees 22 Great tit Parus major Green - 1 1 2 2 - 1 2 Hedgerows and trees 23 Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Green - - 18 13 - 1 - 18 Hedgerows and fallow 24 Jackdaw Corvus monedula Green - - - - 2 - 2 2 Flyover 25 Jay Garrulus glandarius Green - - 1 - - - - 1 Hedgerow and trees 26 Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus Green - 9 10 6 - - - 10 Hedgerow and trees 27 Pied wagtail Motacilla alba Green 3 ------1 Flyover 28 Magpie Pica pica Green 4 - 1 2 3 2 2 4 Hedgerow and trees 29 Robin Erithacus rubecula Green 2 1 2 - - - - 2 Hedgerow and trees 30 Woodpigeon Columba palumbus Green 1 6 5 1 1 - 4 6 Hedgerow and trees 31 Feral pigeon Columba livia Green P P P P P - - P Arable 32 Red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa Introduced - - 1 - - - - 1 Arable margin

Red rows are BOCC red-list, Amber rows are BoCC amber-list, Green rows are BoCC green-list, NA rows are non-native species. BoCC: Birds of Conservation Concern as defined and listed in Eaton et al. (2015)

Hazel Dormouse

3.30 The data search (NBN Atlas) shows no records of hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius within 10km of site. However, the site has good links with nearby woodlands as well as good habitat on site.

3.31 The dormice presence / likely absence surveys on site gathered 28 points (20 points are required to show presence / likely absence, Bright et al. 2006) and showed no signs of dormice nests on site. As such this species is considered likely absent from site, and thus are not considered further within this report. See Table 10 below for results and Appendix 8 for a plan of the tube locations.

Table 10: Hazel Dormouse Survey Summary

Survey Points (50 Current points Month: tubes) (100 tubes) Survey Date: Initials: DM found (Y/N) August 5 10 29/08/2017 KM N September 7 14 29/09/2017 KM N October 2 4 24/10/2017 RG N Total 14 28

Invertebrates

Desk Study

3.32 Records for 918 species of invertebrate of conservation concern were returned, defined within the data return as those with the status of Species of Principal Importance, nationally rare or scarce, or considered to be of conservation concern at the ‘Essex’ scale. Many of the records are derived from sites such as Epping Forest and wetlands within the Lee Valley.

3.33 The habitat characteristics of the species on the data search are summarised in Table 11. A diverse range of ecological habitat associations are represented, reflecting the high value woodland and wetland sites within the search radius. Six Broad Assemblage Types and two Specific Assemblage Types are in ‘favourable’ condition and likely to be among the most important habitats within the wider landscape. In terms of the Site, the most relevant Broad Assemblage Types are probably those of ‘grassland and scrub matrix and ‘unshaded early successional mosaic’.

Table 11: ISIS Summary of Data Search

Assemblage Assemblage name Number of Condition code species Broad Assemblage Type* W3 Permanent wet mire 79 Favourable F2 Grassland and scrub matrix 71 Favourable A2 Wood decay 70 Favourable W1 Flowing water 53 Favourable F1 Unshaded early successional mosaic 49 Favourable A1 Arboreal canopy 43 Favourable F3 Shaded field and ground layer 32 - W2 Mineral marsh and open water 22 Favourable 18

Assemblage Assemblage name Number of Condition code species

Specific Assemblage Type A2 Wood decay types A212 Bark and sapwood decay 20 - A211 Heartwood decay 16 Favourable A213 Fungal fruiting bodies 3 - A215 Epiphyte fauna 1 - F1 Unshaded early successional mosaic F111 Bare sand and chalk 7 - F112 Open short sward 6 - W2 Mineral marsh and open water W211 Open water on disturbed mineral 2 - sediments W3 Permanent wet mire W314 Reedfen and pools 7 - W312 Sphagnum bog 6 - W313 Moss and tussock fen 3 - W311 Open water in acid mire matrix 2 - W1 Flowing water W125 Slow-flowing rivers 3 Favourable W126 Seepage 4 - F2 Grassland and scrub matrix F212 Scrub-heath and moorland 8 - F22 Scrub edge 8 - *some species do not have Assemblage Types Associations

3.34 Included within the species of conservation concern are 51 moths that are Species of Principal Importance on the basis of national declines while remaining widespread (Butterfly Conservation, 2007). These species are mostly habitat generalists, with the caterpillar foodplants typically a range of herbs and / or shrubs, with only one wetland specialist moth (Table 12).

Table 12: Assemblage Type Associations of Widespread but Declining Moths

Assemblage code Assemblage name Number of species of Principal Importance Broad Assemblage Type A1 Arboreal canopy 29 F2 Grassland and scrub matrix 16 F1 Unshaded early successional mosaic 4 W3 Permanent wet mire 2 Specific Assemblage Type W314 Reedfen and pools 1

Field Survey

Habitats and Associations

3.35 The main habitat on the site is arable cropland, appraised to be of negligible potential for invertebrates. The main areas of potential interest were considered to be the field margin areas with a mosaic of scrub and grassland; two sampling stations of this type were included within the Site (Table 19

13). Across the wider study area and additional field margin of scrub and grassland mosaic was included, and also two stations around the farm complex to the west where scrub and grassland mosaic was more extensive as a block of habitat.

Table 13: Descriptions of Sampling Stations

Sampling Site / Main Habitats Description station number Study area only 1 Site Grassland and Unmanaged field corner habitat with scrub and rank grassland including some scrub matrix flowering tall ruderal vegetation and scrub (creeping thistle Cirsium arvense with field and bramble Rubus fructicosus as the main species). verge 2 Site Grassland and A mosaic of rank grassland with scrub, hawthorn, blackthorn and bramble as scrub matrix the main species interspersed with rank grassland, mainly false oat grass with field Arrhenatherum elatius with blossom from tall ruderals such as hogweed verge Heracleum sphondylium. 3 Study Grassland and Field verge with rank grassland of false oat grass and some ruderal vegetation area scrub matrix in the field margin. The scrub comprising hedgerow shrubs, mainly hawthorn only with field with blackthorn and bramble as the other frequent species verge 4 Study Grassland and A mosaic of scrub, tall ruderal vegetation and some more open areas of short area scrub matrix perennial vegetation, with blossom from field and wild rose Rosa species, only bramble and tall ruderals, mainly hogweed and willowherb Chamerion angustifolium. 5 Study Grassland and Very similar to station 4, but with a greater extent of grassland habitat and area scrub matrix open vegetation. only

3.36 A total of 152 species were recorded across the study area, of which 78 were recorded in the Site and additional 74 within the wider study area only. 14 species were only recorded from within the Site only, rather than the broader study area.

3.37 The assemblage profiles are presented in Table 14, for the Site only and also the entire study area. A range of Broad Assemblage Types are represented, although the wetland assemblages by vagrant species only, such as the hoverflies Eristalix tenax and E. horticola (Diptera: Syrphidae). The others are typically generalists of scrub and tree foliage and open grasslands of different types.

Table 14: Number of species in Broad and Specific Assemblage Types

Assemblage Assemblage name Site only Entire study area code Number of Condition Number of Condition Species Status Species Status Broad Assemblage Type F2 Grassland and scrub matrix 33 - 39 - A1 Arboreal canopy 9 - 13 - Unshaded early 8 - 9 - F1 successional mosaic W3 Permanent wet mire 8 - 7 -

Assemblage Assemblage name Site only Entire study area code Number of Condition Number of Condition Species Status Species Status Shaded field and ground 1 - 3 - F3 layer A2 Wood decay 1 - 1 - W1 Flowing water 1 - 1 - Mineral marsh and open 1 - 1 - W2 water Specific Assemblage Type A2 wood decay types A212 Bark & sapwood decay 1 - 2 - F1 unshaded early successional mosaic types F111 Bare sand and chalk 0 - 1 - F2 grassland and scrub matrix types F222 Scrub edge 0 - 2 -

3.38 Across the study area five specialist species are present (Table 15), but only one in the Site, the leaf cutter bee Megachile centuncularis (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) that nests in old insect burrows in dead wood but forages more widely on blossom (sampling station 1). The other four specialists in the study area comprise two wasps, a butterfly and a bush cricket.

Table 15: Occurrence of Specialist Species within Specific Assemblage Types

Order: Family Scientific Name On- Study Ecology Site area 1 2 3 4 5 A212 bark and sapwood decay Hymenoptera: Megachile X X X Nests in old insect burrows in dead wood but Megachilidae centuncularis forages more widely on blossom Hymenoptera: Ectemnius lapidarius X X Nests in old insect burrows in dead wood but Crabronidae forages more widely on blossom and hunts small insects F111 bare sand and chalk Hymenoptera: Crossocerus X A ground-nesting wasp hunting and foraging on Sphecidae quadrimaculatus taller vegetation, found around the farm complex hunting over a sparse sward area F212 scrub edge Lepidoptera: Pyronia tithonus X X A grass-feeding butterfly, but need shelter of scrub Satyridae Orthoptera: Leptophyes X X A species of scrub in sheltered locations Phaneropteridae punctatissima

Species of Conservation Concern

3.39 No species of conservation concern were recorded. It is likely however, that several species of widespread but declining moth are present utilising the scrub and grassland habitats only as a small assemblage and in low numbers, these being Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006.

Reptiles

3.40 The data search showed three of the four common reptile species present within 2km of the study area, as shown in Table 16 below.

Table 16: Reptile Species Recorded from Data Search

Species No. of Last Recorded Minimum Distance from Site Records Adder 201 2018 2.5 Grass Snake 249 2018 1 Slow-worm 73 2017 2.2

3.41 Table 17 below highlights weather conditions for each survey visit as well as results from the reptile survey; indicative locations of reptile refugia can be found in Appendix 10.

Table 17: Weather Conditions and Reptile Species Recorded

Survey visit Date Prevailing weather Temp °C Species

Cloud 85%, 1 04/09/17 13 None Beaufort 1 Cloud 30%, 2 07/09/17 15 None Beaufort 0 Cloud 95%, 3 14/09/17 15 None Beaufort 2 Cloud 10%, 4 22/09/17 17 None Beaufort 2 Cloud 80%, 5 29/09/17 16 None Beaufort 1 Cloud 60%, 6 03/10/17 14 None Beaufort 0 Cloud 80%, 7 09/10/17 15 None Beaufort 1

3.42 After seven presence / likely absence survey visits, no reptile species were found to be present on site. As such, this group is not discussed further within this report.

Small and Medium-sized Mammals

3.43 Records of UK BAP/NERC Act priority species identified within 2km of the study area included; • Brown Hare Lepus europaeus (8no. records, closest at 2km from site, most recent in 1996) • Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus (12no. records, closest at 1.4km from site, most recent in 2004), and • Western Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus (43no. records, closest at 800m from site, most recent in 2017).

Habitat Assessment 22

European Hedgehog

3.44 The scrubby areas and hedgerows on Site, are considered to provide suitable foraging habitat for the European hedgehog based on the guidance provided by Harris & Yalden (2008). Although no evidence or sightings of hedgehog was observed while on Site during the 2017 surveys, it is considered likely hedgehogs are utilising suitable habitats on site.

Brown Hare

3.45 No brown hares were observed throughout the phase 2 surveys in 2017, which included dusk site visits. The site is considered to have suitable habitat for hare but this species would have been expected to be observed if present on site. As such it can be assumed absent and is thus not considered further within this report.

Harvest Mouse

3.46 There are a number of harvest mice records in the vicinity of site (12 records), the closest of which is 1.4km from site. Suitable habitat on site is restricted to hedgerow margins and areas of rough grassland between hedgerows or along road verges. In addition, a large population of mice and voles were found on site utilizing the reptile refugia. Due to high number of other small mammals found on site, and records within the vicinity of site it is considered possible they may be utilising the aforementioned habitats.

4.0 Evaluation

Valuing Ecological Features and Resources

4.1 The CIEEM Guidelines (2016) recognises that ecological evaluation is a ‘complex and subjective process’ but provides key considerations to apply when ‘applying professional judgment to assign values to ecological features and resources’.

4.2 In this chapter, all ecological resources or features are assigned to a value relating to their geographic frame of reference, using the following scale: • International; • National (England); • Regional (East Anglia); • County (Essex); • District (Epping); • Local (Waltham Abbey); and • Site (Land North of Dowding Way).

4.3 In order to identify the geographical scale at which a feature is important, the CIEEM guidance recommends that legal protection be considered separately from ecological importance, and suggests that it is better to use professional judgement when making such assessments. In terms of impact assessment, it is stated in the CIEEM guidance to consider all features which might be impacted upon significantly, again working within a geographical scale.

Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

European Statutory Designated Sites

4.4 The European designated sites within 10km of the Site (Epping Forest SAC and Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar) is assessed as being of International importance.

UK Statutory Designated Sites

4.5 The five Statutory designated sites within 2km of the site (Epping Forest SSSI, Turnford and Cheshunt SSSI, Waltham Abbey SSSI, Cornmill Stream and Old River Lea SSSI and Chingford Reservoirs SSSI) are assessed as being of National importance.

Non-statutory Designated Sites

4.6 There are 16 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 2km of the site’s boundaries (Table 2). The LWS are, in general, high quality examples of habitats in the local landscape and are assessed as being of County importance.

Habitats

Arable Field Margins

4.7 The majority of arable field margins on site are considered unlikely to meet the UK BAP / NERC Act priority habitat description ‘Arable Field Margins’ due to their not being managed specifically to benefit wildlife. These margins are considered valuable at a Site / Local level for the value as a wildlife habitat and corridor.

Hedgerows

4.8 The hedgerows on site are considered to meet the UK BAP / NERC Act priority habitat description for ‘Hedgerows’ as well as three which are classified as ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. The hedgerows on site provide good ecological connectivity across the site. The hedgerows are thus considered important at a Local level.

Mature Trees

4.9 The mature trees on site considered valuable to biodiversity for the age, size, features, species etc. can be considered important at a Local level, due to their ecological value and rarity.

Semi-improved Grassland

4.10 Although the semi-improved grassland field is not considered a NERC act habitat of principal importance, the habitat still offers general biodiversity value and habitat for wildlife and as such is considered important at Site level.

Orchard

4.11 The orchard within the study area has not been managed for some time, allowing scrub to encroach on what may have been grassland habitat, likely to have been more valuable for biodiversity. Nonetheless this priority habitat is considered important at a Local level, but it not present within the developable area.

Other Habitats

4.12 The remaining scattered trees that do not fall into the ‘mature trees’ bracket provide a green link for wildlife, but as individual specimens are considered unlikely to provide high ecological value. Equally the tall ruderal habitats, arable field margins, dense and scattered scrub provide a green link for biodiversity. Whilst individually these do not provide high ecological value, however as a matrix of habitats, provide ecological connectivity in an otherwise barren landscape and as such are collectively considered important at a Site scale.

4.13 All the other habitats on site (arable fields, fencing, bare ground) are considered important on a Site scale due to providing little value for biodiversity.

Badger

4.14 The low-level foraging and commuting badgers on site is considered to be of value at a Site level of importance. The site is considered to be of negligible value for sett building.

Bats

4.15 The site had a confirmed assemblage of three confirmed species with a possible further four species; the majority of calls were made up of common bat species (common and soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus). However, a number of less common bat species were recorded on site during the 2017 activity and static surveys, including Leisler’s bat passes. Rare or less common bat species were recorded in relatively low numbers, and as such the bat assemblage on site is considered important at a Local level.

4.16 The habitats on site are varied in their importance for bats: the arable fields which dominate the site, on the whole showed low numbers of passes by most bat species and as such are considered important at a Site level. The boundary habitats: hedgerows, arable field margins, and set aside grassland field had more passes by bats, although still in relatively low numbers, and generally by common species, with the exception of Leisler’s bat, as such the boundary habitats on site are thus considered important at the Site / Local level.

4.17 The emergence surveys on site and within the study area had no confirmed bat roosts. Due to the nature of tree roosts falling in and out of use, and the potential still being present, it is considered the roosting importance of the site is likely Site.

Birds

4.18 The site supported an assemblage of 32 bird species using the site of which 18 were recorded within the breeding season and 28 in the non-breeding season. Of these, 13 are considered notable species: eight on the BoCC red-list and five on the BoCC amber-list. The remaining species included 18 green- listed species and one non-native species. All species were considered common and widespread both locally and nationally. The breeding assemblage on the Site was considered to be of Local value and the and non-breeding assemblages was of District value with reference to the breeding assemblage criteria of Fuller (1980) (Table 18) and modified in light of species declines by IEEM (2006).

Table 18: Site value based on breeding bird community size (Fuller 1980)

Number of breeding bird species Site Value <25 Local 25-49 District 50-69 County 70-84 Regional >85 National

Invertebrate Survey

4.19 The evaluation of sites for invertebrates typically follows the guidance of Colin Plant Associates (2006), which is based on the numbers of rare and scarce species. Following the introduction of ISIS the presence of specialist species from the same assemblage types as the rare and scarce species is also considered indicative of higher quality sites, as is the condition status of a site when it is judged to be ‘favourable’.

4.20 No species of conservation concern were recorded. It is likely that a small assemblage of moths with the status of Species of Principal Importance is present, these being generalist species with a range of common foodplants and present as parts of a larger local population present in similar areas of scrub and grassland mosaic. The Site and study area are not thought to hold particularly scarce microhabitats and resources, and the specialist species recorded are widespread in such habitats.

4.21 Against the Colin Plant Associates criteria, the site is therefore evaluated as being of Local importance.

Small and Medium-sized Mammals

4.22 Although no sightings of hedgehog, brown hare or harvest mouse were observed on site, hedgehog and harvest mice are generally difficult to locate and it is considered they both may utilise the boundary habitats on site. As none were observed, this is likely to be in relatively low numbers, and as such the site is considered to be of value at a Site level for these species. It is anticipated that if brown hare were utilising the site they would have been spotted during the 2017 / 2018 surveys, and as such this species is considered likely absent from site.

Summary of Evaluation Features

4.23 The evaluation of all ecological features within and adjacent to the site are provided in Table 19.

Table 19: Summary Evaluation of Site Features

No. Feature Summary Description Value

1 SAC / SPA / Ramsar Epping Forest / Lee Valley International

A total of five biological SSSIs: Epping Forest SSSI, Turnford and 2 SSSI Cheshunt SSSI, Waltham Abbey SSSI, Cornmill Stream and Old National River Lea SSSI and Chingford Reservoirs SSSI A total of 16 LWS: Gunpowder Park; Thomson’s Wood; Sewardstone / Osier Marshes; Oxley’s Wood Complex; Conybury Wood; Carroll’s Farm Complex; Warlies Park; Gravel Hill / Hill 3 LWS County Beach; Cobbin’s Brook; Oak Farm Grassland; High Beach Churchyard; Aldergrove Wood; Green Lane / Brambly Shaw; Lippits Hill Scrub; Northfield Marsh; and Day’s Farm Paddocks. Hedgerows Local 4 Priority Habitats Orchard (off-site, within study area) Local Mature trees Local Matrix of habitats Site 5 Other habitats Arable field margins Site / Local Arable fields Site

6 Badger Foraging and dispersal habitat on site only. Site

No trees with confirmed roosting bats but potential for 21 trees Bats - Roosting within the study area (6 on site) to support future roosting Local opportunities Bat assemblage of 3 confirmed and 4 additional possible species Local 7 including some which are less common Bats – Foraging The bat assemblage utilising the arable fields Site Bat assemblage utilising the hedgerows, semi-improved Site / Local grasslands, scattered trees and arable field margins Assemblage of 32 species: Birds – Breeding and 8 15 breeding predominantly scrub/grassland and arable species. Local Non-Breeding 28 non-breeding species including wintering finch flocks District No species of conservation concern, but a small assemblage of widespread but declining moths probably present, as part of larger 9 Invertebrates local population(s) in similar habitats. The specialist species Local recorded are widespread. No scarce microhabitats or resources considered present. Small and Medium- 10 Suitable habitats for European hedgehog and Harvest Mice Site sized Mammals

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 The site consists of a predominantly arable habitats with boundary hedgerows with trees and small area of poor semi-improved grassland. The site boundary features are of moderate ecological value 28

and the arable habitats of low ecological value Many of the habitats are likely to be of value to several protected species as well as being of general biodiversity value themselves.

5.2 The following ecology strategy is recommended: • Retention, enhancement and protection of priority habitats including mature trees and hedges where possible. • Creation of significant areas of wildlife friendly planting, to include: well managed native species hedgerows and margins, broadleaved trees; bird and bat boxes; invertebrate piles; and a nectar and berry rich planting scheme; and • A Landscape and Ecology Mitigation and Management Plan to ensure adherence to wildlife legislation and longer-term establishment and survival of new habitats;

5.3 It is considered that any potential adverse impacts from the proposed development upon specific protected species/habitats/designated sites will likely be able to be mitigated in line with relevant wildlife legislation and planning policy. With appropriate on-site mitigation and well planned, targeted enhancements, a neutral or possibly minor positive change in the biodiversity could potentially be achieved, in line with chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, of the NPPF (DCLG, 2012).

6.0 References

Bat Conservation Trust (2015) Bats and Trees. London: BCT

Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A. & Mustoe, S. H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press. p. 39.

Bright, P.W., Morris, P.A., and Mitchell-Jones, T. (2006). The Dormouse Conservation Handbook (2nd Ed.). Peterborough: English Nature.

Bruce-White, C. and Shardlow, M. (2011) A Review of the Impact of Artificial Light on Invertebrates. Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Peterborough.

Butterfly Conservation (2007) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Moths. Available at: https://butterfly-conservation.org/files/the-uk-biodiversity-action-plan.pdf.

CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd Edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Colin Plant Associates (2006). EcIA Guideline Comments. Unpublished Report to the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Available from: www.ieem.org.uk.

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Cresswell, Birks, Dean, Pacheco, Trewhella, Wells and Wray (2012). UK BAP Mammals Interim Guidance for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation. The mammal Society, Southampton.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. [Internet]. Available from: www.communities.gov.uk.

Drake, C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. & Webb, J. (2007) Surveying Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrates for Conservation Evaluation. Natural England, Sheffield.

Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R., Lock, L., Musgrave, A., Noble D., Stroud, D., and Gregory R.D. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708-746.

English Nature (2005) Organising Surveys to Determine Site Quality for Invertebrates a Framework Guide for Ecologists. Peterborough: English Nature or Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/116024.

Froglife, (1999). Reptile Survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Peterborough.

Fuller, R.J. (1980) A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation. Biological Conservation 17: 229-239.

Fure, A. (2006) Bats and Lighting. The London Naturalist, No. 85.

Gent. T. & Gibson. S. (2003) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Gunnell, K., Grant, G., and Williams C. (2012). Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers: Occasional Publication No.9 The Mammal Society.

Harris, S., & Yalden D.W (2008). Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook, 4th ed. The Mammal Society, London.

Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey. A technique for environmental audit. 2nd Edition. JNCC: Peterborough. 80pp.

Jones, J. (2000). Impact of Lighting on Bats. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Natural England (2009). Guidance on ‘Current Use’ in the Definition of a Badger Sett. Natural England, Peterborough.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S and Jeffcote, M. (2000). Herpetological Journal. Vol. 10, pp. 143- 155.

Russ, J. (2012). British bat calls. A guide to species identification. Pelagic.

Stace, C. (2010). New Flora of the British Isles (3rd ed). Cambridge University Press.

Stone, E.L. (2013) Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance. University of Bristol: Bristol.

UK Biodiversity Partnership (2006). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Joint Nature Conservation Committee http://www.ukbap.org.uk/.

UK Biodiversity Partnership (2007). Biodiversity reporting and information group. Report on the Species and Habitat Review. http://www.ukbap.org.uk/. van Langevelde, F., Ettema, J.A., Donners, M., Wallis DeVries., M.F. and Groenendijk., D. (2011). Effect of Spectral Composition of Artificial Light on the Attraction of Moths. Biological Conservation 144 (9): 2274-2281.

Appendix 1: Site Boundary Plan

Appendix 2: Proposed Layout for Phase 1 and Phase 2

Appendix 3: Phase 1 Habitat Plan Showing Study Area and Site Boundary

Appendix 4: Legislation

This document has not been prepared by a legal or planning professional and should be read as an interpretation of relevant statutes and planning policy guidance only. The information presented within this document has been reported in good faith and are the genuine opinion of SES on such matters. SES does not accept any liability resulting from outcomes relating to the use of this information or its interpretation within this document.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981

The two principal sources of wildlife legislation are the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 that deals principally with internationally important sites and species, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that deals principally with nationally important sites and species.

Species listed under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 are the European Protected Species (EPS). Together with provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the EPS are protected by the following criminal offences. It is an offence to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of an EPS; • Deliberately disturb wild animals of any EPS, in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability: o to survive, to breed or reproduce, to rear or nurture their young; or o in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or o to affect significantly the local distribution of the species to which they belong; • Intentionally or recklessly: o Disturb any EPS whilst it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; or o Obstruct access to any structure or place which any EPS uses for shelter or protection • Damage or destroy any structure or place which any wild animal of an EPS uses for shelter or protection; • Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of an EPS; • Possess or transport any part of a EPS; • Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead EPS, or any part of, or anything derived from an EPS;

All wild birds are protected from intentional killing, injuring or taking under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Certain species of wild bird listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are further protected from intentional or reckless disturbance at their nest sites whilst building a nest or in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young. A further offence is the intentional taking or destroying of an egg of any wild bird.

In addition to this statutory protection British birds are also classified according to their conservation status, including their position on the Red and Amber lists of Birds of Conservation Concern in the UK 3 (Eaton et al, 2015) and whether they have been identified as Priority Species under the England Biodiversity Strategy.

Red list species are those that are Globally Threatened according to IUCN criteria, those with populations or ranges that have declined rapidly in recent years and those that have declined historically and not shown a substantial recent recovery.

Amber list species are those with an unfavourable conservation status, those whose population or range has declined moderately in recent years; those whose population has declined historically but made a substantial recent recovery; rare breeders; and those with internationally important or localised populations.

Green list species are all regularly occurring species that do not qualify under any of the Red or Amber criteria. The Green list also includes those species listed as recovering from Historical Decline in the last review that have continued to recover and do not qualify under any of the other criteria.

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Badgers have historically been given legal protection since 1973 however the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidated and strengthened previous legislation. It is a criminal offence to: • Wilfully kill, injure, or take any Badger. • Possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger. • Possess any dead badger or part of one. • Possess or control a living, healthy Badger. • Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a sett, or disturb a Badger whilst it is occupying a sett.

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997

Under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, hedgerows growing in, or adjacent to, any common land, protected land, or land used for agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses, ponies or donkeys are protected from removal if; the hedgerow has a continuous length of, or exceeding, 20 metres; or it has a continuous length of less than 20 metres and, at each end, meets (whether by intersection or junction) another hedgerow. In addition, certain hedgerows receive additional protection from removal as “Important Hedgerows”.

England Priority Species and Priority Habitats

The UK Government’s commitment to the conservation and enhancement of biological diversity was outlined in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). It listed habitats and species that were of conservation concern and set national priorities and targets for the protection and enhancement of these resources. The UK BAP has been superseded by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act, 2006), however the UK BAP is still referred to for priority habitats and species.

The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework succeeded the UK BAP and the subsequent adoption of the Ecosystems Approach. This was as a result of a change in strategic thinking following the publication of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020’, and its 20 ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ in 2010, as well as the launch of the new EU Biodiversity Strategy (EU BS) in May 2011. The UK Post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework demonstrates how the work of the four countries in the UK should contribute to

achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and identifies the activities required to complement the country biodiversity strategies in achieving these targets.

Appendix 5: Survey Methods

Bats

Bat Activity Survey

A suite of transect and static detector surveys were undertaken in 2017 to conform to methodology stated in the Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016). In relation to these guidelines the site was assessed a-priori as of low quality for bat activity. Therefore, the following programme of survey work was undertaken: • Bat activity surveys along a walked transect once each season (Spring – April / May, Summer – June / July / August and Autumn – September / October). • The walked transect was routed to cover the site as evenly as possible; with all areas of the site being accessible during the surveys except for dense areas of scrub. • Transects were supplemented with spot counts at 12 designated sampling points for circa five minutes (see Appendix 6 for the transect route walked on each survey). • Transect start points and route direction (clockwise/anti-clockwise) were varied systematically between survey visits to ensure coverage of different areas of the site at different times in relation to sunset, to ensure there was no systematic spatio-temporal bias in the results. • A combination of Batbox duet detectors and edirol recorders were used to record bat calls for activity surveys. • Automated survey locations were sampled (using constant-monitoring data-logging detectors – Anabats and SM2s) once each season (as above). The surveys used one static detector for a minimum of 5 consecutive nights each season (as above).

Personnel varied between each activity survey, and weather conditions for activity surveys can be found in the table below.

Personnel and weather on activity surveys Survey date Surveyors Weather Conditions Temperature (°C) 14/08/2017 (dusk) Rachel Geller and Lucia Shaw Cloud cover 100%, Beaufort 1 19 02/10/2017 (dusk) Lucy Addison and Kate Mann Cloud cover 100%, Beaufort 1 15 23/04/2018 (dusk) Rachel Geller and Vicky Wallace Cloud Cover 100%, Beaufort 2 14

Bat call analysis

All bat calls recorded on Anabats or SM2 detectors were downloaded with all recordings made in zero crossing. Manual checks were performed on SM2 WAV files using Batsound 4.2 (Pettersson Elektronik AB, 2013), and on Anabat Zero Crossing files using AnalookW (Chris Corben, 2011), using Zero Crossings Analysis. SM2 WAV files were scrubbed using Kaleidoscope (Wildlife Acoustics 2015) detection software, removing files classified as background noise. 10% of files automatically detected as background noise (Kaleidoscope) or as a pipistrelle species (Sonochiro) were manually checked using Batsound to confirm accuracy. Manual species identification was undertaken using differing combinations of the following call characteristics and parameters: peak frequency energy; maximum and minimum frequency; call duration; call slope; overall visual pattern assessed by eye. Calls were compared to an in-house bat call library and the book British Bat Calls (Russ, 2012) was used extensively to guide identification.

Myotis species are particularly difficult to identify from calls and many of these were assigned to Myotis genus only or tentatively identified to species by both SonoChiro and in manual checks. Some pipistrelle calls are also difficult to assigned to common or soprano and have been assigned to Pipistrellus genus only.

Bat Roost Scoping Survey

Tree scoping surveys were undertaken by suitably qualified ecologist, Lucy Addison BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM, in August 2017, following best practice guidance (Collins, 2016). All trees onsite were assessed and, where possible, trees along boundaries displaying potential roosting features were also surveyed from site. The survey involved using binoculars to look for potential roosting features such as woodpecker holes, splits and cracks in branches and loose bark.

The tree scoping survey was undertaken to guide survey effort moving forward including the need for aerial inspection and/or emergence survey.

Bat Emergence/Re-entry Surveys

Following internal inspections, trees were categorised into one of three potential risk categories; low, moderate and high. These categories are defined as follows: • Low: A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions 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. In addition; a tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. • Medium: A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions, and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only) • High: A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions, and surrounding habitat.

Emergence/re-entry surveys were undertaken between August and September 2017, within published guidelines for emergence surveys (Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, Collins, 2016) i.e. starting 15 minutes before sunset and lasting for 1.5-2hours after sunset (dusk emergence) or starting 1.5-2hours before sunrise, finishing at dawn or later if bats are still active (dawn re-entry).

Emergence surveys raw data

Survey Sunse Start End Weather Tem Tree Emergenc

date t / Time Time Conditio p e

Sunris ns (°C)

T8 T9 T11 T13 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 e T6 23/08/201 20.04 19:4 21:3 Cloud 20      None 7 (dusk) 9 4 cover 40%, Beaufort 1-2

Survey Sunse Start End Weather Tem Tree Emergenc

date t / Time Time Conditio p e

Sunris ns (°C)

T8 T9 T11 T13 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 e T6 29/08/201 19:54 19:3 21:2 Cloud 20  None 7 (dusk) 9 4 cover 70%, Beaufort 2 11/09/201 19:25 19:1 20:5 Cloud 16   None 7 (dusk) 0 5 cover 80%, Beaufort 1 12/09/201 06:30 05:0 06:3 Cloud 13        None 7 (dawn) 0 0 cover 10%, Beaufort 0 18/09/201 19:06 18:5 20:3 Cloud 14    None 7 (dusk) 1 6 cover 100%, Beaufort 0 19/09/201 06:42 05:1 06:4 Cloud 10    None 7 (dawn) 2 2 cover 10%, Beaufort 0 Total no. of surveys 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Badger

Presence/Likely Absence Survey

Badger surveys can be undertaken anytime, but ideally outside of the summer months when vegetation is dense. They are best undertaken when vegetation is low in February and April; which also coincides with a peak in territorial activity. A second peak in activity occurs in October but vegetation can potentially hinder the location of setts in dense vegetation.

The survey consisted of a review of aerial photographs and a detailed systematic walkover survey, with particular attention being paid to areas where vegetation and/or topography offered suitable sett sites. The badger signs looked for were: • Setts, • Prints, • Badger runs, • Hairs, • Latrines, • Scratching posts, and • Snuffle marks.

The walkover survey was undertaken on the in August 2017, when the weather conditions were dry and with good visibility. Surveys were undertaken by Lucy Addison MSc BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM.

All accessible holes were examined to determine if they were or ever had been badger setts. The number of entrances and levels of use were recorded, and the sett was classified according to the criteria used in the National Badger surveys (Harris et al. 1989). The classification criteria are given below: • Main setts – a large well established, often extensive and in continuous use. There is only one main sett per social group of badgers. This is where the cubs are most likely to be born. • Annexe setts – occur in close association with the main sett and are linked to the main sett by clear well-used paths. If a second litter of cubs are born, they will be reared here. • Subsidiary setts – these often have 3-5 holes and are normally over 50m from a main sett and are not linked by clear paths. These setts are not continually active. • Outlying setts – these usually have 1-3 holes, have small spoil heaps and are sporadically used. Foxes and rabbits may move in.

An assessment of the activity of each sett was undertaken; the following categories were assigned to the entrance holes to make this assessment: • Well-used: Entrances clear of debris and vegetation and are obviously well used. • Partially-used: Entrances are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves or twigs across the entrances. These holes could come into regular use with minimal clearance. • Disused: Entrances have not been used for some time, are partially or completely blocked. There may be a depression in the ground where the hole used to be.

Natural England define a badger sett as the system of tunnels and chambers, in which badgers live, and their entrances and immediate surrounds or to other structures used by badgers for shelter and refuge. More specifically the 1992 Act says that these structures and places must show signs indicating current use by a badger. ‘Signs indicating current use’ are those such as fresh spoil heaps and clear entrances.

Assessment of Territory Size and Population Density

Badger territories are likely shaped by the dispersion of food resources (Kruuk & Parish, 1982) as it is known that badgers often feed in patches, where food resources are more easily obtained. We know that badgers may live within a territory that contains a significant earthworm biomass, but there is no correlation between earth worm biomass (most important badger food resource in England) and badger group size as the earth worms may not be accessible. For instance, they may be present in high numbers within arable fields, where it is difficult to extract them. Certain habitats constitute high quality foraging habitat, especially deciduous woodland, the base of hedgerows and close grazed pasture as earth worm biomass is high and extracting them is relatively easy (Hoffer, 1988). Thus, if a small proportion of earthworm-rich habitat is present in a territory, large quantities of other habitat types are also included.

Birds

Breeding and non-breeding bird surveys were undertaken by Stephen Parr BSc (Hons) MCIEEM and Darren Denmead BSC (Hons) GradCIEEM in 2017 and 2018. The study area included the whole of the area within the application site boundary and adjacent areas that could be surveyed from within the site, generally covering a buffer perimeter of 10-20m. A transect was walked slowly pausing to record birds heard and observed, covering all areas of the site within 25m, and route directions were varied between survey visits. Birds flying over and not using the site or surrounding area were recorded separately. All bird locations and behaviour were mapped using the standard Common Birds Census notation. All survey visits were undertaken during the

morning after the dawn period when bird singing intensity tends to be high but stable. The methods followed Bibby et al. (2000). The visit data are provided in the table below:

Summary of bird survey visits

Visit Number Date Time Survey Conditions (Period) 1 12/10/2017 08:00 - 11:00 12°C, no rain, wind 1, cloud 2/8, good visibility. (Autumn) 2 30/10/2017 09:30 - 12:00 6°C, no rain, wind 0, cloud 1/8, good visibility. (Autumn) 3 04/12/2017 08:00 - 11:00 2°C, no rain, wind 2, cloud 1/8, slight mist, good visibility. (Winter) 4 02/01/2018 08:00 - 11:00 3°C, no rain, wind 1, cloud 8/8, overcast, good visibility. (Winter) 5 04/04/2018 08:00 - 10:30 13°C, no rain, wind 3, cloud 4/8, sunny, good visibility. (Breeding) 6 20/04/2018 08:00 - 10:30 16°C, no rain, wind 1, cloud 0, sunny, good visibility. (Breeding) 7 10°C, drizzle at time, wind 2-3, cloud 8, moderate-good 02/05/2018 07:30 – 10:30 (Breeding) visibility

For breeding, field maps were analysed to determine probable breeding bird registrations relating to different territories and to judge which birds are using the area for breeding or for other activities such as foraging. A ‘probable’ or ‘confirmed’ territory is defined as a cluster of registrations of singing or displaying individuals from more than one visit, or one or more registrations of the following breeding behaviour: disturbance displaying, interspecific aggressive interaction, repetitively alarming, carrying food, nest material or faecal sacs, or if active nests or young were found. If a singing bird is recorded on just one visit or sight observations of birds are recorded in the same area on more than one visit and are not likely to be associated with any other recorded territories, these are assigned as a ‘possible’ territory.

Invertebrates

A data search was commissioned from the EFC, covering a 2km radius from the centre of the site. A walkover survey was undertaken to appraise the site and its habitats in terms of the features relevant to invertebrates, such as specific microhabitats and resources of particular value.

A walkover survey was undertaken to visually appraise the site and its habitats in terms of the features relevant to invertebrates, such as microhabitats and resources typically associated with rare or scarce species. Sampling was mainly undertaken at discrete sampling stations, five in total. The sampling stations were decided upon following a preliminary walkover and with reference to the phase 1 habitat survey; these stations were located in areas considered to be of highest likely value and to ensure a good representation of the highest value habitats on the site. These stations were sampled on: 17th August 2017, 4th September 2017 and 28th September 2017, with sampling on each visit for 40-minutes, divided as hand searching and sweep netting. Sampling covered all of the taxa considered necessary for a robust assessment of such habitats (following Drake et al., 2007), including the major families of beetles and flies, bees and wasps and plant bugs. The fieldwork was undertaken by Dr Graham Hopkins MCIEEM FRES but with assistance from Dr JI Thacker (6 June

2016). Identifications of specimens was undertaken by Drs Hopkins and Thacker. Figure xxxxxx provides the locations and photographs of sampling sites.

Species lists were analysed using the Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System (hereafter ‘ISIS’) Natural England (Drake et al., 2007). This package provides standardised descriptions for species habitat requirements:

• Broad Assemblage Type describing the broad association of a species, and; • Specific Assemblage Type for species with greater specialisation, which are only found in a specific sub- set or type of a Broad Assemblage Type (although the majority of species are generalists and do not have a Specific Assemblage Type).

Species of conservation concern are defined as: protected species, those satisfying rare or scarce criteria (Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce), and/or those listed as Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006 as described below.

Summary of conservation statuses for invertebrates (see Drake et al., 2007 for full definitions). Conservation Definition Status Red Data Book Species occurring in fewer than 16 10-km squares of the National Grid, divided as: Endangered (Red species Data Book 1), for species known from a single population or in continuous recent decline and now known from five or fewer 10-km squares; Vulnerable (Red Data Book 2), likely to become Endangered (Red Data Book 1) if causal factors continue; Rare (Red Data Book 3), species at risk but not qualifying as Vulnerable. For simplicity the term Nationally Scarce is used even where the formal classification of a species is Nationally Notable. Both Nationally Scarce and Nationally Notable status apply to species known or likely to be present within 16 to 100 10-km squares of the National Grid; for a number of species this is further refined as –A or –B according to range: –A is assigned to species thought to occur in 30 or fewer 10-km squares of the National Grid; and –B for species thought to occur in 31 to 100 10-km squares of the National Grid Species of Those species listed on Section 41 of the National Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006. Principal Included on the list are a number of species afforded the status due to recent population declines while Importance nevertheless remaining widespread (Butterfly Conservation, 2007)

Evaluation

For invertebrates, the frame of reference is as described above with the evaluation following the criteria proposed by Colin Plant Associates (2006). Also available is the output from ISIS, which provides scores for broad and specific assemblage types with thresholds for determining ‘favourable’ status that is broadly equivalent to assemblages of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) quality or national value.

Criteria used to define significance of invertebrate habitats. Significance Description Minimum qualifying criteria National UK important site Achieving SSSI invertebrate criteria or containing RDB2 (Vulnerable) or containing viable populations of RDB 3 (Rare) species or containing viable populations of any species protected under UK legislation or containing habitats that are threatened or rare nationally Regional Site with populations of Habitat that is scarce or threatened in the region or which has, or is invertebrates or invertebrate reasonably expected to have, the presence of an assemblage of habitats considered scarce or rare invertebrates including at least ten Nationally Notable species or at or threatened in south-east least ten species listed as Regionally Notable for the English Nature England region in question in the Recorder database or elsewhere or a combination of these categories amounting to ten species in total

Significance Description Minimum qualifying criteria County Site with populations of Habitat that is scarce or threatened in the county and/or which invertebrates or invertebrate contains or is reasonably expected to contain an assemblage of habitats considered scarce or rare invertebrates that includes viable populations of at least five or threatened in the county in Nationally Notable species or viable populations of at least five species question regarded as Regionally Scarce by the county records centres and/or field club District Site with populations of A rather vague definition of habitats falling below county significance invertebrates or invertebrate level, but which may be of greater significance than merely Local. They habitats considered scarce or rare include sites for which Nationally Notable species in the range from 1 or threatened in the to 4 examples are reasonably expected but not yet necessarily administrative District recorded Local Site with populations of Habitats or species unique or of some other significance within the invertebrates or invertebrate local area habitats considered scarce or rare or threatened in the affected and neighbouring Parishes Low _ Although almost no area is completely without significance these are Significance the areas with nothing more than expected ‘background’ populations of common species and the occasional Nationally Local species

Reptiles

To detect presence or likely absence, a seven-visit survey is recommended (Froglife, 1999). Seven survey visits (over and above the recommended) were undertaken during ‘suitable’ days for reptile activity by Kate Mann and Rachel Geller between August and October 2017. A ‘suitable’ survey day is determined by the weather, with temperature being the pre-eminent factor.

Refugia were laid in suitable habitat using the surveyor’s professional judgement. This survey allowed an assessment of the carrying capacity of these habitats. As density dependence often plays a role in population size (Massot et al., 1992), this information will guide the mitigation and compensation measures.

Refugia were laid at a density of 10 per hectare in suitable habitat, as per best practice guidance (Froglife, 1999). Reptile refugia (0.5m x 0.5m felt squares) were used to observe reptiles basking or taking refuge, these were laid in transects and left for seven days to settle before the survey commenced. Appendix 8 shows the indicative refugia positions. If presence was detected a categorical population assessment would be carried out with the largest count within the first seven visits indicating the category (Low, Good, Exceptional) of the recorded reptile species. This survey methodology is recognised as best practice by Froglife (1999) and the Herpetofauna Worker’s Manual (Gent & Gibson, 2003). The table below details the assessment categories:

Froglife Population Class Assessment for Reptiles. Species Low Population Good Population Exceptional Population

Common Lizard <5 5-20 >20 Slow-Worms <5 5-20 >20 Grass Snake <5 5-10 >10 Adder <5 5-10 >10

Ambient air temperature is an essential factor for reptile surveys after suitable habitat has been located. Reptile surveys conducted between 10 and 17 degrees centigrade have the most chance of success. The key months for reptile surveys are April, May and September with April and May being advantageous because it is reptile mating season, which means they will be more obvious and less wary of observers. Also, the temperatures are generally lower during these months and as such it will take longer for the reptiles to warm

up so they must spend more time basking. During the warmer summer months animals will have to spend less time basking due to the increase in ambient temperature, thus reptile survey visits will be conducted earlier in the day during the hotter summer months. However, the temperature on the day of the visit will ultimately determine what time the survey takes place.

Small and Medium-sized Mammals

The Phase 1 survey identified habitats on site which may have the potential to support small mammals listed as UK BAP priority species and as species of principle importance under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) act 2006. As such a survey for BAP mammals was undertaken on the subsequent Phase 2 surveys as described above.

The presence/likely absence of these species (European hedgehog, brown hare and harvest mice) has been determined using incidental surveying during numerous site visits following Cresswell et al. (2012) survey methodology, including early morning and evening ecological surveys such as bats, reptiles and dormice.

European Hedgehog

Records of hedgehogs within the vicinity of the study area were analysed in addition to spotlight surveys at night using a powerful lamp and scanning the ground either side as the observer walks along habitats used by hedgehogs (e.g. woodland edges and short grass). Occasional pauses to listen for rustling are useful. Cold and/or wet nights are less productive than warm nights. In addition, survey for potential nesting sites (i.e. brushwood piles, sprawling brambles as well as underground in burrows, tree stumps or natural cavities) and materials (medium sized deciduous leaves i.e. oak leaves) are vital features, with an absence of sheltering supportive structures suggesting an absence of hedgehogs.

Harvest Mouse

Breeding nests are the most obvious sign indicating the presence of harvest mouse and they are the only British mammal to build nests of woven grass well above ground. Nests tend to be found in dense vegetation such as grasses, rushes, cereals, grassy hedgerows and brambles.

Brown Hare

Brown hares prefer open landscapes where they can evade predators more easily. Hares do not shelter in burrows. Instead they make small depressions in the ground (known as forms), usually alongside hedgerows or within long grass. Their diet consists of grasses, herbaceous plants and cereal crops. A desk top data search for brown hare was undertaken alongside spotlight searches just before dusk and just after dawn. Searches for droppings (hard, round or slightly flattened pellets, about 1cm across) are also useful. Hare surveys are best undertaken in late winter/early spring when vegetation cover is at its lowest and thus hares are at their most visible.

Appendix 6: Bat Survey Results

Bat Activity Transect

Automated Detector Locations

Activity Survey Results

14th August 2017. Dusk activity survey. Weather: Beaufort 1, Cloud cover 100% Temperature: 19°C Detectors: Batbox Duet & Edirol Recorder Sunset: 20:26 / Start time: 20:26 / Finish time: 22:42 Time Sampling Point Comment 20:28 W12-1 20:33 S1 20:38 W1-2 No activity 20:44 S2 20:49 W2-3 20:52 S3 20:56 S3 Possible Leislers, Flying in field 20:58 W3-4 HNS, 1xPossible Leislers 21:00 W3-4 HNS, 1xSoprano pipistrelle, 2 passes 21:04 W3-4 HNS, 1xSoprano pipistrelle 21:06 S4 No activity 21:12 W4-5 21:14 W4-5 HNS, 1xSoprano pipistrelle, 1xCommon pipistrelle 21:19 W4-5 1xCommon pipistrelle 21:19 S5 2xSoprano pipistrelle 21:20 S5 HNS, Possible Leislers 21:24 S5 1xCommon pipistrelle 21:25 W5-6 No activity 21:28 W5-6 1xSoprano pipistrelle, Continuous foraging 21:31 W5-6 1xCommon pipistrelle, 1xSoprano pipistrelle 21:32 S6 21:36 W6-7 No activity 21:45 S7 21:49 S7 HNS, 1xSoprano pipistrelle 21:50 W7-8 No activity 21:55 W7-8 HNS, 1xPipistrelle sp. 21:56 S8 No activity 22:01 W8-9 22:04 W8-9 HNS, 1xUnidentified bat 22:09 S9 No activity 22:10 S9 HNS, 1xCommon pipistrelle 22:11 S9 HNS, 1xSoprano pipistrelle 22:12 W9-10 No activity 22:17 W9-10 1xCommon pipistrelle 22:17 W9-10 1xUnidentified bat 22:18 S10 22:24 W10-11 No activity 22:27 S11 22:31 S11 HNS, 1xCommon pipistrelle 22:33 S11 HNS, 2xCommon pipistrelle 22:34 W11-12 No activity 22:37 W11-12 HNS, 1xCommon pipistrelle

Time Sampling Point Comment 22:39 W11-12 HNS, 1xCommon pipistrelle 22:41 S12 No activity 22:42 S12 HNS, 1xCommon pipistrelle HNS=Heard Not Seen

2nd October 2017. Dusk activity survey. Weather: Beaufort 1, Cloud cover 100% Temperature: 15°C Detectors: Batbox Duet & Edirol Recorder Sunset: 18:36 / Start time: 18:36 / Finish time: 20:36 Time Sampling Point Comment 18:36 S2 18:41 W2-3 18:45 S3 No activity 18:51 W3-4 1855 S4 1900 W4-5 1904 1xPossible Leislers 1908 S5 No activity 1913 W5-6 1xSoprano pipistrelle 1916 S6 No 1917 1xCommon pipistrelle 1919 1xCommon pipistrelle 1920 1xCommon pipistrelle, 2 passes 1xLeislers 1921 W6-7 1929 S7 1934 W7-8 1939 S8 1944 W8-9 1949 S9 1954 W9-10 No activity 1958 S10 2003 W10-11 2008 S11 2013 W11-12 2017 S12 2022 W12-1 1xSoprano pipistrelle, flying in field 2030 S1 No activity 2035 W1-2 2036 Finish HNS=Heard Not Seen

23nd April 2018. Dusk activity survey. Weather: Beaufort 2, Cloud cover 100% Temperature: 14°C Detectors: Bat Box Duet and Edirol Recorder Sunset: 20:10 / Start time: 20:10 / Finish time: 22:18 Time Sampling Point Comment 20:12 W1-2 20:13 20:15 S2 20:20 W2-3 No activity 20:26 S3 20:31 W3-4 20:37 S4 20:42 W4-5 20:49 S5 1xSoprano pipistrelle, 1 pass 20:54 No activity 21:00 W5-6 1xCommon pipistrelle, 1 pass 21:04 S6 21:09 W6-7 21:14 S7 21:19 W7-8 21:24 S8 21:29 W8-9 21:35 S9 No activity 21:41 W9-10 21:47 S10 21:52 W10-11 21:55 S11 22:00 W11-12 22:04 S12 22:06 1xCommon pipistrelle, 1 pass 22:09 W12-1 No activity 22:13 S1 HNS=Heard Not Seen

Trees with Roosting Potential (No Roosts Found)

Appendix 7: Badger Survey Results

Appendix 8: Hazel Dormouse Tube Locations

Land off Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey

Trinity Hall College and Next Holdings Ltd

Dormouse Tube Locations

1.0 NTS 24.04.18

LCA N

Appendix 9: Invertebrate Sampling Stations and Survey Results

Invertebrate Sampling Stations

Land off Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey

Trinity Hall College and Next Holdings Ltd

Invertebrate Sampling Stations

1. NTS 24.04. 0 18 LCA N

Invertebrate Survey Data from 2017 Survey of Study Area

Order: family Species On-Site Study area 1 2 3 4 5 Arachnids: Opiliones Dicranopalpus ramosus X Arachnids: Opiliones Nemastoma bimaculatum X Arachnids: Opiliones Phalangium opilio X X X X Aranea: Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha montana X X X X Araneae: Anyphaenidae Anyphaena accentuata X X X Araneae: Araneidae Araneus diadematus X X Araneae: Araneidae Araniella opisthographa X X X X X Araneae: Dictynidae Dictyna uncinata X X X Araneae: Dictynidae Lathys humilis X Araneae: Linyphiidae Hylyphantes graminicola X X Araneae: Linyphiidae Lepthyphantes flavipes X X X Araneae: Linyphiidae Lepthyphantes zimmermanni X Araneae: Linyphiidae Linyphia hortensis X X Araneae: Linyphiidae Linyphia triangularis X X Araneae: Linyphiidae Neriene peltata X X Araneae: Lycosidae Alopecosa pulverulenta X X Araneae: Lycosidae Pardosa amentata X X X Araneae: Lycosidae Trochosa ruricola X Araneae: Philodromidae Philodromus cespitum X Araneae: Tetragnathidae Meta segmentata X X X X X Araneae: Tetragnathidae Metellina mengei X X Araneae: Tetragnathidae Pachygnatha clercki X X X X Araneae: Tetragnathidae Pachygnatha degeeri X X X X Araneae: Theridiidae Anelosimus vittatus X Araneae: Theridiidae Enoplognatha ovata X X X X X Araneae: Theridiidae Theridion sisyphium X Coleoptera: Bruchidae Bruchidius villosus X X Coleoptera: Byturidae Byturus tomentosus X Coleoptera: Cantharidae Cantharis nigra X X X Coleoptera: Cantharidae Cantharis rustica X Coleoptera: Cantharidae Rhagonycha fulva X X X X Coleoptera: Carabidae Amara aenea X Coleoptera: Carabidae Carabus violaceus X Coleoptera: Carabidae Harpalus affinis X Coleoptera: Carabidae Microlestes minutulus X X Coleoptera: Carabidae Notiophilus biguttatus X X X Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus madidus X X Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Altica palustris X X Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Otiorhynchus sulcatus X Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Sitona lineatus X Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Cassida sanguinolenta X Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Oulema rufocyanea X Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Adalia 10-punctata X X X X Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Coccinella 7-punctata X Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Harmonia axyridis X X Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Propylea 14-punctata X Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata X Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Hippodamia variegata X X Coleoptera: Curculionidae Anthonomus rubi X Coleoptera: Curculionidae Apion frumentarium X Coleoptera: Curculionidae Curculio glandium X X X

Order: family Species On-Site Study area 1 2 3 4 5 Coleoptera: Curculionidae Curculio nucum X Coleoptera: Curculionidae Phylobius pomaceus X Coleoptera: Elateridae Agriotes sputator X X Coleoptera: Elateridae Athous haemorrhoidalis X X X X Coleoptera: Oedemeridae Oedemera nobilis X X X X X Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Philonthus decorus X Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae Lagria hirta X Dermaptera Forficula auricularia X Diptera: Asilidae Leptogaster cylindrica X X Diptera: Empidae Empis livida X Diptera: Stratiomyidae Chloromyia formosa X Diptera: Syrphidae Cheilosia illustrata X X Diptera: Syrphidae Chrysotoxum bicinctum X Diptera: Syrphidae Episyrphus balteatus X X X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis arbustorum X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis horticola X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis intricarius X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis nemorum X X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis pertinax X X X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis tenax X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Eupeodes luniger X Diptera: Syrphidae Helophilus pendulus X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Melanostoma mellinum X X Diptera: Syrphidae Melanostoma scalare X Diptera: Syrphidae Meliscaeva cinctella X Diptera: Syrphidae Metasyrphus corollae X X Diptera: Syrphidae Neoascia podagrica X Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus albimanus X X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus angustatus X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus clypeatus X Diptera: Syrphidae Sphaerophoria scripta X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Syritta pipiens X X X X X Diptera: Syrphidae Syrphus ribesii X Diptera: Syrphidae Syrphus vitripennis X Diptera: Syrphidae Volucella bombylans X X Diptera: Syrphidae Volucella zonaria X X X Diptera: Tephritidae Tephritis formosa X Diptera: Tephritidae Urophora jaceana X X X Ditpera: Empidae Hilara submaura X Formicidae Lasius niger X X X X X Heteroptera: Acanthosomatidae Acanthosoma haemorrhoidale X X X X Heteroptera: Anthocoridae Anthocoris confusus X X X Heteroptera: Anthocoridae Anthocoris nemoralis X Heteroptera: Coreidae Coreus marginatus X Heteroptera: Coreidae Coriomeris denticulatus X Heteroptera: Coreidae Leptoglossus occidentalis X X Heteroptera: Lygaeidae Heterogaster urticae X X X X Heteroptera: Miridae Capsus ater X X X X X Heteroptera: Miridae Closterotomus norwegicus X Heteroptera: Miridae Lygocoris pabulinus X X X X X Heteroptera: Miridae Lygus pratensis X Heteroptera: Miridae Nebria brevicollis X X Heteroptera: Miridae Notostira elongata X X Heteroptera: Miridae Orthotylus adenocarpi X

Order: family Species On-Site Study area 1 2 3 4 5 Heteroptera: Miridae Pithanus maerkeli X X Heteroptera: Miridae Stenodema laevigatum X X X X X Heteroptera: Miridae Stenotus binotatus X X X X X Heteroptera: Nabidae Himacerus apterus X Heteroptera: Nabidae Nabis rugosus X X Heteroptera: Pentatomidae Palomena prasina X X X Heteroptera: Pentatomidae Zicrona caerulea X X Homoptera: Aphroporidae Neophilaenus lineatus X X Homoptera: Aphroporidae Philaenus spumarius X X Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus brevicornis X Hymenoptera: Apidae Bombus pascuorum X X X X X Hymenoptera: Apidae Bombus sylvestris X Hymenoptera: Apidae Bombus terrestris X X X X X Hymenoptera: Apionidae Protapion assimile X Hymenoptera: Crabronidae Crossocerus quadrimaculatus X Hymenoptera: Crabronidae Ectemnius lapidarius X Hymenoptera: Halictidae Lasioglossum calceatum X X Hymenoptera: Megachilidae Megachile centuncularis X X X Hymenoptera: Sphecidae Astata boops X X Hymenoptera: Vespidae Dolichopus popularis X X X X Hymenoptera: Vespidae Dolichovespula media X X X Hymenoptera: Vespidae Vespula germanica X X X X Hymenoptera: Vespidae Vespula vulgaris X X X Hymenoptera:Apidae Apis mellifera X X Hymenoptera:Apidae Bombus hypnorum X Isopoda: Oniscidae Oniscus asellus X X Isopodae: Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare X X Leipdotpera: Nymphalidae Aglais urticae X X X X X Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae Ochlodes faunus X X X Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Celastrina argiolus X Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Lycaena phlaeas X X X X Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae Polyommatus icarus X Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae Inachis io X X X X X Lepidoptera: Pieridae Pieris brassicae X X X Lepidoptera: Pieridae Pieris rapae X Lepidoptera: Satyridae Maniola jurtina X X X X X Lepidoptera: Satyridae Pyronia tithonus X X Mollusca Aegopinella nitidula X X Mollusca Cepaea hortensis X X Mollusca Cepaea nemoralis X X Mollusca Discus rotundatus X X X Mollusca: Helicidae Helix aspersa X X Odonata: Coenagriondiae Coenagrion puella X X Orthoptera: Acrididae Chorthippus brunneus X X X X Orthoptera: Acrididae Chorthippus paralellus X X Orthoptera: Phaneropteridae Leptophyes punctatissima X X

Appendix 10: Reptile Refugia Locations

Land off Dowding Way, Waltham Abbey

Trinity Hall College and Next Holdings Ltd

Reptile Transect

1. NTS 24.04.18 0 LCA N

Appendix 11: Hedgerow Survey Results

Appendix 12: Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats The following table is reproduced from Gunnell, K., Grant, G. and Williams, C. (2012). Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity, Bat Conservation Trust. This table contains a suggested species list of plants that can provide benefit for bats either by providing a food source for insects and/ or roost potential. The plants listed are predominately native to Britain. The small group of non-native plants included for their documented value for wildlife. This list has been checked by the author against Natural England's list of invasive non-native plants. Green Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Native (N) Type Benefit Soil Light roofs walls gardens trees borders Acer campestre Field maple N T/S C Any Sun/ shade Y Acer platanoides Norway maple T S Well drained/ alkaline Sun/ shade Y Acer saooharum Sugar maple T S Any Sun/ shade Y Achillea millefolium Yarrow N HP C,F Well drained Sun Y Ajuga reptans Bugle N HP C,F Any Sun/ shade Y Y Anthyllis vulneraria Kidney vetch N HP F Well drained Sun Y Aubrieta deltoidea Aubrieta H F Well drained Sun/shade Y betula pendula Sliver birch N T C Sandy/ acid Sun Y Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo- flower N HP F Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Carpinus betulus Hornbeam N T C Clay Sun Y Centaurea nigra Common knapweed N HP C,F Dry, not acid Sun Y Y Centranthus ruber Red valerian HP F Well drained Sun Y Y Clematis vitalba Old man's Beard N C F well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Corylus avellana Hazel N S C Any dry Sun/ shade Y Y Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn N S S,C Any Sun/shade Y Daucus carota Wild carrot N Bi S,C,F Any Sun Y Y Dianthus spp. Pinks N A-Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y Y Digitalis purpurea Foxglove N Bi C Well drained Shade/ partial shade Y Y Erica cinera Bell heather N S F Sandy Full sun Y Ersimum cherira Wallflower Bi-P F Well drained Sun Y Y Eupatorium Hemp agrimony N H F Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Fagus sylvatica Beech N T C, R Well drained alkaline Sun/shade Y Foeniculum vulgare Fennel H F Well drained Sun Y Fraxinus excelsior Common Ash N T C, R Any Sun/ shade Y Hebe spp. Hebe species S F Well drained Sun /shade Y Y Hedera Helix Ivy N C F,C Any Sun/ shade Y Y Y Y

Green Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Native (N) Type Benefit Soil Light roofs walls gardens trees borders Hesperis matrionalis Sweet Rocket H F Well drained/ dry Sun/ shade Y Hyacinthoides non -scripta Bluebell N B F Loam Shade/ partial shade Y Y Y llex aquailfolium Holly N T C Any Sun/ shade Y Jasmine officinale Common jasmine C F Well drained Sun Y Y Lavandula spp. Lavender species S F Well drained / sandy Sun Y Y Linaria vulgaris Toadflax N HP C Well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Y Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle N C F Well drained Sun Y Y Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil N HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Lunaria annua Honesty Bi F Any Sun/ partial shade Y Y Malus spp. Apple T C Any Sun Y Y Matthiola longipetala Night - scented stock A F Well drained/ moist Y Y Myosotis spp. Forget me not species N A F Any Sun Y Y Y Nicotiania alata Ornamental tobacco A F Well drained moist Sun /partial shade Y Y Oneothera spp. Evening primrose Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y Origanum vulgare Marjoram N HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y Populus alba White poplar N T C Clay loam Sun Y Primula veris Cowslip N HP F Well drained/ moist Sun/ partial shade Y Y Primula vulgaris Primrose N HP F Moist Partial shade Y Y Y Y Prunus avium Wild cherry N T C Any Sun Y Y Prunus domestica Plum T C Well drained/ moist Sun Y Y Prunus spinosa Blackthorn N S C Any Sun/ partial shade Y Querois petraea Sessile oak N T C,R Sandy loam Sun/ shade Y Quercus robur Common oak N T R Clay Loam Sun/ shade Y Rosa canina Dog rose N S C Any Sun Y Y Y Salix spp. Willow species N S S,C Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Sambucus nigra Elder N T C Clay loam Sun Y Saponaria officinalis Soapwort N HP F Any Sun Y Saxifraga oppositifolia saxifage N HP C Well drained Sun Y Y Y Scabiosa columbaria small scabious N HP F Well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Y

Green Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Native (N) Type Benefit Soil Light roofs walls gardens trees borders Sedum spectabile Ice plant HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Silene dioecia Red campion N HP F Any Shade/ partial shade Y Y Y Y Sorbus aucuparia Rowan N T C Well drained Sun Y Stachys lanata Lamb's ear HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Symphotrichum spp. Michalemas daisies HP F Any Sun Y Tages patula French marigold A F Well drained Sun Y Thymus serpyllum Creeping thyme N HP/S F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Y Tilia x europaea Common lime T C Any Sun/ shade Y Trifolium spp. Clover species N H F Any Sun Y Y Valerina spp. Valerian species N HP F Moist Sun/ partial shade Y Y Verbascum spp. Mulliens N Bi, HP C Well drained Sun Y Verbena bonariensis Verbena HP F Well drained/moist Sun Y Viburnum lantana Wayfaring tree N S C Any Sun/ shade Y Y Viburnum opulus Guelder rose N S C Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Viola tricolor Pansy N A F Well drained/ moist Y Y Y

Legend

Type Benefit Type Benefit Moth caterpillar food plant HP Herbaceous perennial C Sap sucking insects (e.g. whiteflies) Bi Biennial S Flowers attract adult moths BiP Biennial perennial F Good roost potential T Tree E

S Shrub H Herb A Annual B Bulb C Creeper/ climber