Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst,

Berkshire Ecological Assessment

(TEP Report Ref: 4544.011) December 2015 Version 1

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Tilehurst Sites, Berkshire Ecological Assessment TEP Report Ref: 4544.011 December 2015 Version 1

Prepared by:

TEP Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel: 01925 844004 Fax: 01925 844002 e-mail: [email protected]

for

Darcliffe Homes Ltd & Horstonbridge Ltd Kingfisher House Albury Close Reading Berkshire RG30 1BD

Written: Checked: Approved: SS FBH FBH

4544.011 Page 1 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment CONTENTS PAGE

SUMMARY ...... 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 3.0 OVERVIEW ...... 5 4.0 METHODS ...... 6 Desk Study ...... 6 Habitats and Flora ...... 6 Fauna ...... 7 5.0 RESULTS ...... 10 Desk Study ...... 10 Habitats ...... 13 Protected and Invasive Plants ...... 14 Connectivity with the Wider Landscape ...... 14 Fauna ...... 14 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 18 Designated Sites ...... 18 Habitats and Flora ...... 18 Fauna ...... 18 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 21 Designated Sites ...... 21 Habitats and Flora ...... 21 Fauna ...... 21 Opportunities for Enhancement ...... 23 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A Desk Study Information Appendix B Target Notes Appendix C Bat Survey Results Appendix D Badger Survey Results

DRAWINGS

G4544.003.002.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map G4544.019 Bat Survey Map G4544.05.001A Badger Survey Map

4544.011 Page 2 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment SUMMARY

1.1 TEP was commissioned by Darcliffe Homes Ltd, Horstonbridge (Thames Valley) Ltd and Horstonbridge (Tilehurst) Ltd to carry out an ecological assessment of Stoneham’s Farm on the western edge of Tilehurst, Berkshire. This site is being put forward for allocation for residential development in West Berkshire District Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). It lies adjacent to the settlement boundary, with open farmland and woodland extending west to Sulham Brook and the River Pang.

1.2 In 2014, TEP carried out a desktop study, an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, a badger survey, an initial assessment of ponds for great crested newt, and a nocturnal bat activity survey. The survey results led to recommendations for biodiversity conservation which (along with information on landscape, views, heritage, access and technical matters) have been reflected in the Opportunities & Indicative Development Framework (Drawing D4544.014_024) prepared by TEP to indicate how development may proceed in accordance with national and local policy.

1.3 Stoneham’s Farm comprises an arable field and farmhouse with surrounding trees and hedgerows. The site is of relatively low ecological interest. The features of greatest value are the boundary hedgerows and trees, and the protected species that these may support. The farmhouse and outbuilding may also offer opportunities for bats to roost. Bat activity hotspots were recorded along the established hedgerow with trees along the north eastern site boundary, and in the southern corner of the site. The site is connected to nearby woodland local wildlife sites (LWS) via footpaths. Recommendations are made to retain hedgerows, increase tree planting and minimise adverse recreational pressure on offsite LWS.

1.4 Should this site be taken forward to planning application, recommendations for further survey are made to inform detailed design, layout and infrastructure provision.

1.5 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, recommendations for enhancement and provision of biodiversity opportunities on site are also provided.

4544.011 Page 3 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 TEP was commissioned by Darcliffe Homes, Horstonbridge (Thames Valley) Ltd and Horstonbridge (Tilehurst) Ltd to carry out an ecological assessment of Stoneham’s Farm on the western edge of Tilehurst, Berkshire. This site is being put forward for allocation for residential development in West Berkshire District Council’s Site Allocations DPD. The following desk and field surveys have been completed:

. Desktop Study, June 2014 . Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, June 2014; . An initial assessment of ponds within 0.5km of the site boundaries to assess their potential for supporting breeding GCN, June 2014; and . Badger survey including the four sites and surrounding habitats, July 2014. . A nocturnal bat activity survey including a dusk transect survey and use of static detectors left in place to record for three consecutive nights, August 2014 2.2 The objectives of this report are as follows:

. to describe the existing vegetation and give an overview of the habitats present; . to identify whether there are any features of conservation value such as designated sites, protected species or habitats of biodiversity importance on site or within the wider zone of influence; . to inform the Opportunities & Indicative Development Framework prepared by TEP; . to advise of further surveys or mitigation requirements that may be needed prior to development of the site (depending on the final development design); and . to outline opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4544.011 Page 4 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 3.0 OVERVIEW

3.1 Stoneham’s Farm lies on the western edge of Tilehurst, centred at grid reference SU655747 (see Figure 1). The “redline” boundary is shown over aerial photography in Appendix A. The “redline” boundary is the outer extent of the SHLAA map, and does not necessarily reflect the extent of proposed development which is informed by environmental constraint mapping.

3.2 The site lies adjacent to the settlement boundary, with open farmland and woodland extending west to Sulham Brook and the River Pang (over 2km west), and farther south, to the M4 (c.2km south west). The site comprises agricultural land (an arable field and farmhouse with surrounding trees and hedgerow) and falls within the North Wessex Downs AONB.

Figure 1: Site location

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

4544.011 Page 5 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 4.0 METHODS

Desk Study 4.1 Information regarding protected sites, and notable habitats and pre-existing species records within a 1km radius of the site boundary was gathered from the sources listed in Table 1. In addition, international and national designated sites within 5km were identified. Species records can provide a useful indication of the species present within the search area, although the absence of a given species from the dataset cannot be taken to represent actual absence.

4.2 Where development is proposed in areas of potential great crested newt (GCN) habitat, Natural England guidelines (2001) suggest that all ponds within 0.5km are considered in respect of the species. Waterbodies within 0.5km of the site boundaries were therefore identified from Ordnance Survey mapping and publically available aerial photography and an assessment of their relevance to the proposed development site was made.

4.3 Relevant policies from the local plan(s) relating to biodiversity were also identified.

Table 1: Ecological information and consultations

Source of information Nature of information

Maps showing legally protected sites and MAGIC Map1 habitats of value to biodiversity. Thames Valley Environmental Record Centre Wildlife site citations and species records.

Google Maps Satellite imagery West Reading Woodland and LNR Biodiversity Berkshire Local Nature Partnership website Opportunity Area – map and general information

Habitats and Flora 4.4 A Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out on 11 and 12 June 2014 in accordance with the JNCC (2010) guidelines of land within and immediately adjacent to the four red line boundaries provided. This identifies the habitat types on site and provides a list of key plant species. Plants were identified in accordance with Stace (2010). Incidental signs of protected or notable species were also recorded. The area surveyed is illustrated in Drawing G4544.03.001. Weather conditions during the survey were dry and bright.

Limitations 4.5 The site survey was carried out in mid June when vernal species will already have flowered. This particularly relates to woodland ground flora, such as bluebell. Whilst some species may be overlooked or may not be identified to species level, this does not pose a constraint to the identification of broad Phase 1 habitat types.

4.6 Note that no survey was carried out within the grounds of 216 Long Lane, a farmhouse (216 Long Lane) and garden which fall within the Stoneham’s Farm site (at grid reference SU 65629 74660). This has been taken into account during the survey and subsequent recommendations; as such, it poses no significant constraint.

1 The Government Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside www.magic.gov.uk

4544.011 Page 6 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Fauna 4.7 The Phase 1 habitat survey was ‘extended’ to identify habitat features that may support species of conservation concern, particularly statutorily protected species or Species of Principal Importance, as listed under Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Badger 4.8 The badger survey was carried out on 30 July 2014 during dry, sunny and calm conditions. The survey was carried out by experienced badger surveyor M Freeman of EcoTrack. The survey included the site, all publicly accessible land within the surrounding 30m, and the woodland habitats flanking Long Lane where these front the proposed development site. Additional searches into Vicarage Wood, Barefoots Copse and Cornwell Copse were also carried out to understand badger activity in local woodland habitats.

4.9 Surveyed land was walked, including both sides of all linear field boundaries (access permitting) and repeatedly traversing through the wooded habitats. The locations of setts and any further field signs, such as footprints, paths, dung pits and latrines, hairs, claw marks and feeding signs, were recorded. Setts were classified in accordance with Harris et al. (1989) taking into account the number of entrances and level of use (active, partial or disused). Each clan (family unit) typically occupies one main sett with associated annexe, subsidiary and outlier setts. Territorial boundaries are marked with large latrines (collections of dung pits) which are most heavily used in the early spring when the badgers are most territorial.

Limitations 4.10 The survey did not extend to private residential gardens beyond the site boundary. Given the extent of survey across the site and additional searches into the nearby woodlands, this is not considered to pose a significant constraint.

4.11 The survey was carried out during late July when badgers are less active and less territorial than in the early part of the year. Setts may therefore appear disused (due to reduced digging activity or collection of bedding in comparison to February/March or October/November around the breeding season) and there are typically fewer field signs in the form of latrines and paths that mark territorial boundaries. Nevertheless, given the intensity of survey, it is highly unlikely that any active sett of significant size would be overlooked.

4.12 Ground vegetation is also comparatively high at this time of year and can therefore mask field signs. At the time of survey, ground conditions were dry and compacted, hence; footprints are less well defined and may not be visible at all. Furthermore, badgers feed less on earthworms (which are more difficult to access in such conditions) and instead turn to other diets, thereby creating fewer snuffle holes. Although this is not a significant constraint, this has been taken into account during the survey and the subsequent recommendations.

Great Crested Newt 4.13 A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of waterbodies within 0.5km of the site boundary (identified through the desk study and site surveys) was carried out on 11 and 12 June 2014. The survey was carried out by licensed GCN surveyor S Swindlehurst (MCIEEM CEnv) of TEP. A single waterbody was identified in this distance, as illustrated in Figure 2. The HSI uses standardised criteria (based on Oldham et al., 2000) to assess the suitability to support breeding great crested newt

4544.011 Page 7 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment (GCN). HSI is not a substitute for presence/probable absence survey but can be used to guide survey effort. HSI scores a number of parameters, such as the size of a given waterbody, water quality, shading, terrestrial habitat, aquatic vegetation, and the likely presence of fish and waterfowl. The overall HSI score indicates whether a waterbody is of poor, below average, average, good or excellent quality habitat for GCN.

Figure 2: Location of waterbody assessed using GCN HSI

Pond 1*

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013 * Note that the wooded habitats of Barefoots Copse have extended from that shown in the OS base, to encompass Pond 1. The ditch running through Cornwell Copse was discounted during the Phase 1 habitat survey from further assessment for GCN.

Nocturnal Bat Activity Survey 4.14 A dusk activity transect survey was carried out on 26 August 2014 led by licensed bat surveyors C Howe (Grad CIEEM) of TEP and M Freeman of EcoTrack. The survey was carried out during suitable weather conditions, with due consideration given to the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines (2012). A transect was walked, with nine paused monitoring points of three minutes along the length. The route encompassed Stoneham’s Farm and an area of woodland and grassland mosaic to the south east known as ‘Land East of Long Lane & South of Blackthorn Close’. The survey provides a snapshot of bat activity across the site and the local landscape, to inform the development feasibility studies and early masterplanning.

4.15 The transect was walked by the bat surveyor (with a health and safety second) equipped with a heterodyne and a frequency division detector (Magenta Bat5 and Anabat SD2) to detect and record bats in support of each surveyor’s visual observations. The time, species, direction and behaviour (e.g. foraging, commuting, social calling) of each bat pass was noted wherever possible.

4.16 It is recognised that recordings are biased towards bats that use louder echolocation calls. Species which have quiet and/or highly directional echolocations, such as the brown long-eared bat, are less likely to trigger the detectors and may be more readily masked by background noise or missed by a directional detector microphone. The

4544.011 Page 8 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment visual observations of the surveyors are therefore particularly important to minimise the possible under-recording of such species.

4.17 A static detector (Anabat Express) was installed inside the north east boundary hedgerow from the same evening, and left in place to record bat activity for three consecutive nights.

4.18 Sonograms recorded during the walked transect and from the static detector were subsequently analysed using AnaLook software, comparing calls to the parameters set out in Russ (2012). Not all recorded passes can be identified to species level, for example, as a result of similarities between the echolocations of some species, particularly in certain habitats, or to poor recordings and background noise.

4.19 The 2014 nocturnal bat survey provides an indication of the range of species and level of activity in and around the site. The transect route and static detector location was designed to be replicable in the future survey seasons. Roost and activity surveys will be carried out in accordance with best practice (BCT, 2012) and the findings used to inform detailed design.

4544.011 Page 9 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 5.0 RESULTS

Desk Study 5.1 The results of the desk study, including maps of designated sites and notable habitats, are provided in Appendix A.

5.2 The Opportunities & Indicative Development Framework (Drawing D4544.014_024) illustrates the ecological designations and conservation measures in the immediate vicinity of the site.

National and International Designations 5.3 One internationally designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was identified within 5km of the site – Hartslock Wood lies c.4.4km north west of Stoneham’s Farm at the closest point, beyond Pangbourne. The SAC is designated for the Annex I habitats of semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland on calcareous substrates and yew woods.

5.4 Three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie within the 5km search radius, as follows:

. Sulham & Tidmarsh Woods & Meadows SSSI c.1.1km west. The SSSI supports a mosaic of damp copses and seasonally flooded meadow communities that overlie the distinct geology of the River Pang and Sulham Brook valley. These habitats have been maintained by a long history of coppicing and sympathetic grassland husbandry. . Pincents Kiln SSSI, c.2.6km south, is designated for its geological features. . Hartslock Wood SSSI (designation overlies the SAC described above) supports semi-natural habitats characteristic of the Chiltern scarp – species-rich chalk downland, ancient yew woodland, semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, chalk scrub and riverine fen. Local Designations 5.5 Five Local Nature Reserves (LNR) were identified within the 5km search radius (mapped in Appendix A). Four are part of the West Reading Woodlands – Blundells Copse LNR c.1.8km south east, McIlroy Park LNR c.1.8km east, Round Copse LNR c.2.1km south east, Lousehill Copse LNR c.2.2km south east. The fifth, Hosehill Lake, lies over 4km south beyond the M4, which supports a range of waterfowl.

5.6 Five Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) were identified within 1km of the Tilehurst sites, as follows:

. Barefoots Copse LWS lies c.0.2km south of Stoneham’s Farm. This LWS is relatively mixed with areas variously dominated by oak, patches with much suckering elm (probably elm woodland in the past) and areas with hazel or beech coppice. Note that Barefoots Copse is less than 2ha in area and would not therefore be considered for the Ancient Woodland Inventory on the basis of its size. . Clay Copse & Cornwell Copse LWS lie c.0.4km south. The LWS includes areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland, and ancient replanted woodland listed in the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The semi-natural flora in each copse is similar and both include wet flushes. . Sulham Wood LWS forms part of the wider wooded habitat that runs north-south through the River Pang and Sulham Brook valley. It lies c.0.65km west of Stoneham’s Farm, linked by non-designated woodland habitats north of Sulham

4544.011 Page 10 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment Hill. This LWS is an ancient woodland (oak and beech with wild cherry and birch over hazel coppice, some sweet chestnut coppice and a good variety of other shrubs), with areas replanted with conifer. . Mosshall Wood, part of Harryjaws Wood LWS extends north from Sulham Wood LWS, c.0.56km north along the existing footpath from the site. This LWS encompasses lowland beech and yew woodland (S41/UK BAP) and sections of mixed plantation. Some areas within the wood are listed on the ancient woodland inventory. Lies alongside other woodland LWS, forming part of a greater landscape feature. . Pinks Grove and Beale Copse LWS lies south of Sulham Wood, connected by non- designated woodland. At the closest point, this lies c.1km of the site. National Habitat Inventory and Ancient Woodland Inventory 5.7 Habitat inventory sites listed within MAGIC map are summarised in Table 2. Note that the ancient woodland inventory considered woodlands over 2ha; smaller ancient woodlands may not be included even if they meet the criteria. All distances measured are approximate.

Table 2: Habitat Inventory Sites within 1km Source Habitat inventory listings Distance from site

Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland MAGIC Map - Clay Copse & Cornwell Copse c.0.4km - Sulham Wood complex c.0.65km

Ancient Replanted Woodland MAGIC Map - Clay Copse & Cornwell Copse c.0.4km - Sulham Wood complex c.0.65km Deciduous Woodland BAP - Clay Copse & Cornwell Copse MAGIC Map c.0.4km - Barefoots Copse c.0.2km - Sulham Wood complex c.0.65km National Inventory of Woodland & Trees - Clay Copse & Cornwell Copse c.0.4km MAGIC Map - Barefoots Copse c.0.2km - Sulham Wood complex c.0.65km c.0.1km - Vicarage Wood

Biodiversity Opportunity Area 5.8 The West Reading Woodlands and LNR Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) spans the urban fringe (and the various designated woodland sites) in the east of the settlement. The BOA lies south of the site, encompassing the woodland habitats along Long Lane. The Local Nature Partnership’s (LNP) targets for the BOA include woodland management, parkland management, grassland restoration on steep slopes in the west (believed to mean the Sulham estate further west than these sites) and urban woodland management.

5.9 The BOA also includes the wooded escarpments at the edge of the Pang Valley in the west. It encompasses lowland deciduous mixed woodland with extensive areas of ancient woodland, and parkland habitats. Targets and opportunities of the BOA include woodland management, parkland management and restoration of grassland habitats (particularly across steeper slopes in the west).

4544.011 Page 11 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 5.10 The BOA is promoted by the Berkshire LNP. Their website states “BOAs do not represent a statutory designation or a constraint upon activities. They indicate areas where there are substantial opportunities to make positive changes for biodiversity, and should be used to inform conservation strategies and place planning. Members of Berks LNP will strive to work with farmers, landowners, planners, developers and communities in these areas and aim to show that in partnership we can achieve social and economic objectives alongside a thriving natural environment”.

Protected and priority species 5.11 Data provided by Thames Valley Environmental Record Centre (TVERC) within 1km included the following species:

. Flora – records of the woodland species bluebell, butcher’s-broom and white helleborine. . Birds – records of Schedule 1 species include barn owl, brambling, fieldfare, redwing2 and hen harrier. S41 species include cuckoo, grasshopper warbler, tree and house sparrows, turtle dove, grey partridge, hawfinch, reed bunting, skylark, spotted flycatcher, tree pipit, willow warbler and yellowhammer. Red List BoCC include linnet, starling, corn bunting, lesser spotted woodpecker, marsh tit and song thrush. All records relate to Sulham Wood and associated habitats. . Bats – records of bat activity include soprano and common pipistrelle, a bat of the Myotis genus, noctule and brown long-eared. The single roost record was of a brown long-eared autumn roost within the residential area on the western edge of Tilehurst, north of Stoneham’s Farm. . Other mammals – several records of badger including one of an outlier sett at Mosshall Wood. Records of hedgehog all relating to Tilehurst. One record of brown hare relates to the large arable field south west of Sulham Hill (off-site). . Amphibians – GCN records at grid reference SU 647 744 and SU 649 744 (both correspond to Sulham Wood and the grid squares that includes the off-site ponds included within the HSI assessment). Records of common toad (at Downsway School and at Brookfields School in Tilehurst), common frog, palmate and smooth newts also provided. . Reptiles – records of grass snake (including at Sulham Wood) and slow worm (largely relating to private gardens). . Invertebrates – numerous records of stag beetle (largely relating to private gardens) and records of 28 S41 moth species (relating to moth trapping results in a private garden).

5.12 Historic survey data3 state that the “Sulham Ponds” support three species of newt; this is understood to refer to the cluster included within the TVERC data above, although survey reports to which this information relates are awaited at the time of writing.

5.13 Additional project correspondence4 provided in late June 2014 regarding two woodlands owned by West Berkshire Council (taken to refer to Barefoots Copse and Cornwell Copse) describes these as “designated local wildlife sites acting as badger feeding and foraging grounds as do the upper and middle field”. Further, that “There

2 Brambling, fieldfare and redwing do not bred in England and therefore the Schedule 1 protection is largely irrelevant to this location. However, fieldfare and redwing are Red Listed birds of conservation concern. 3 Henry Scutt, Sulham Estate, email 06.06.14, to Mike Rolls, Horston Bridge Ltd. 4 Bryan Lyttle, West Berkshire Council, email 20 March 2014, to Angela Miles, Roger Miles Planning Ltd.

4544.011 Page 12 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment is a known badger set at the edge of the wood to the left of the farm (taken to refer to Vicarage Wood, to the west of Stoneham’s Farm, c.65m from the current red line boundary) and another on the edge of the middle field” (taken to be in the vicinity of Barefoots Copse & Cornwell Copse).

Habitats 5.14 The site comprises 3.21ha agricultural land. The Phase 1 habitat map is provided in Drawing G4544.003.002.1 and accompanying target notes in Appendix B.

Hedgerows, trees and scrub 5.15 The north eastern boundary (alongside a public footpath) and south east boundary (alongside Long Lane) are marked by well-established hedgerows.

5.16 The north east boundary, at the eastern end, comprises an intact species-rich hedgerow with trees. This forms a closed canopy over the footpath with the hedgerow and trees to the rear of the private gardens of Ridgemount Close. The majority of mature trees were pedunculate oak with frequent sycamore. Additional hedgerow species included abundant blackthorn, with occasional hawthorn, elder, English elm and at rare occurrence, holly. Bramble was frequent climbing throughout. Fallen deadwood (possibly old elm) was noted within the base of the hedgerow. An unmown verge c.2m wide runs inside the hedgerow, with abundant soft brome, sterile brome, and frequent false oat-grass and perennial rye-grass. Italian rye-grass, bent, couch, green alkanet, cleavers and white clover were all occasional with field pansy, common vetch, common cat’s-ear, smooth hawk’s-beard, fox-and-cubs, ragwort, mouse-ear and red clover, rare.

5.17 Further west, the hedgerow is species-poor, dominated by blackthorn, which has grown to over 4m height, with bramble and rose climbing throughout. Two mature pedunculate oak with aerial deadwood stand within this section.

5.18 Alongside Long Lane, the intact species-rich hedgerow with trees is dominated by blackthorn with hawthorn, field maple, sycamore, holly and elm also present, and bramble, ivy and field rose climbing throughout. Standard trees include two pedunculate oak and a sycamore. The c.1m wide verge at the base of the hedge has a similar species composition to that described above.

5.19 A hedgerow with trees, of broadly similar species composition to that found at the eastern end of the north boundary, extends along the south western boundary of the arable field. This is the boundary of the site as shown in the SHLAA but lies beyond the indicative development framework boundary. The trees are typically pedunculate oak with blackthorn dominant in the hedgerow, and fallen deadwood at the base. An existing footpath runs alongside.

5.20 Established trees overhang the southern corner of the site from the adjoining residential properties, including apple Malus sp. and oak, with dense blackthorn and bramble below.

Grassland habitats 5.21 The south west boundary is marked by a semi-improved grassland verge, 1-2m wide, which supports abundant false oat-grass and red fescue, with frequent soft brome. Yorkshire fog, yarrow, cow parsley, common field speedwell, mouse-ear, long-stalked crane’s-bill, sheep’s sorrel, common cat’s-ear, nipplewort and field bindweed were all occasional, with tufted hair-grass, cock’s-foot and foxglove at rare occurrence.

4544.011 Page 13 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment Farther south, the sward became increasingly rank with stands of tall ruderal herb – locally dominant common nettle, cleavers, hogweed and cow parsley.

5.22 The western end of the north eastern boundary is marked by a grassland verge. 2.5m (max.) wide, which extends alongside the arable field. The vegetation is less diverse than that of the hedgerow verges farther east on this boundary – being dominated by rye-grass with pineappleweed and barley locally abundant. Shepherd’s purse, scentless mayweed and mugwort are occasional and red poppy, rare. This verge is smaller than the minimum mappable unit and as such is marked only by target note.

5.23 A small area of rank grassland has established within the arable field, east of the farmhouse, in the absence of ploughing (mechanical debris lies below). False oat- grass, creeping thistle and green alkanet were all abundant, with bramble, ragwort, hogweed, broad-leaved willowherb, cleavers and common nettle also present.

Arable 5.24 The majority of the site is an arable field, which was ploughed at the time of survey and sparsely colonised by common and widespread species including pineappleweed, creeping thistle, prickly sow thistle, smooth hawk’s-beard, field bindweed and other species associated with the peripheral vegetation.

Buildings and hardstanding 5.25 The farmhouse (a two storey brick building with hipped tiled roof), surrounding garden and small outbuilding (concrete panel walls with corrugated sheet panel roof and weatherboard trim across north gable end) lie in the south of the Stoneham’s Farm site, accessed from Long Lane. The garden is marked by ornamental shrubs (cherry laurel, various conifers, etc) c.4m height and a trimmed box hedge to the south west, an ivy-clad fence to the north west and line of mature birch with cherry, hawthorn and lilac below to the north east. Mature ash birch and sycamore front Long Lane.

5.26 A number of outbuildings associated with the adjoining properties back onto the south west boundary of the Stoneham’s Farm site – single storey brick outbuildings of ‘The Barn’ with pitches variously comprised of corrugated sheet panels or tiles, and a concrete clad outbuilding of 218 Long Lane with tiled roof (grid reference SU 65563 74640).

Protected and Invasive Plants 5.27 No protected species listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), nor non-native species listed on Schedule 9, were incidentally recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey.

Connectivity with the Wider Landscape 5.28 The Stoneham’s Farm site lies west of Long Lane, and links to the wider landscape of agricultural land use interspersed with woodland, through the River Pang and Sulham Brook valley. The peripheral established linear features form part of a wider network of hedgerows and trees.

Fauna

Birds 5.29 During the extended Phase 1 survey, skylark was recorded singing in the fields to the north west and west of the site as well as in the large open arable fields to the north. The arable area within the site is however of limited extent in contrast to the fields to the north. Coupled with the relatively frequent use of the footpath along the north

4544.011 Page 14 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment west boundary and connecting routes farther west use by walkers and dogwalkers, on balance, the site itself is considered to be of low value to birds associated with open farmland.

5.30 Two red kites were recorded flying over the Stoneham’s Farm site during the badger survey.

5.31 The trees, hedgerows and scrub at the periphery of the site offer habitat suitable for birds to nest.

Bats 5.32 Numerous trees within the hedgerows at the periphery of the sites were noted to support features suitable for bats to roost. These linear habitats are also suitable for bats to commute and forage. These habitats have good connectivity with the wider landscape and are typically unlit making them favourable to bats.

5.33 The farmhouse and outbuilding within Stoneham’s Farm may offer opportunities for bats to roost. The house is a two storey brick building with hipped tiled roof. Windows show that at least part of the roof space is given over to dwelling rooms (third storey). The outbuilding is a concrete panel outbuilding with corrugated sheet panel roof and weatherboard trim across north west gable end. Several windows were open and/or missing offering potential access to bats, and a small, seemingly superficial gap noted below one of the weatherboards.

5.34 Outbuildings associated with the neighbouring residential properties that abut the south west boundary of Stoneham’s Farm (including 218 Long Lane), may offer further opportunities for roosting bats (described in further detail in target notes 6 and 7).

5.35 The results of the nocturnal bat survey are provided in Appendix C. The transect survey identified the northern boundary of Stonehams Farm as having relatively high levels of bat activity (over 41pph) comprising of common and soprano pipistrelle foraging. The first bats (of both species) were recorded 26mins after sunset, suggesting this area may be relatively close to a roost site and is used as an initial feeding area. Common and soprano pipistrelles were also observed foraging along this boundary on the second circuit, 1h 41mins after sunset. Activity was also found to be concentrated in the southern tip of the field which was used for foraging later in the evening. Long Lane had comparatively low levels of bat activity earlier in the evening, with higher levels of activity later in the evening (>41pph). The west/south west boundary of the field supported relatively low levels of bat activity. As data was only recorded during one sample period it is not possible to identify temporal peaks in activity.

Badger 5.36 Badger is known to be active in the local area. The results of the badger survey are provided in Confidential Appendix D. No evidence of badger activity was recorded within the site. No setts were recorded within the surrounding 30m. The ploughed field is considered to be of poor value to the species for foraging.

5.37 Within the surrounding woodland mosaic, a single sett was recorded within Vicarage Wood, located over 100m from Stoneham’s Farm at the closest point. This subsidiary sett is thought to be one of those indicated in the project correspondence (refer to Desk Study subheading above).

4544.011 Page 15 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment Brown Hare 5.38 It is possible that brown hare, may utilise the arable field as part of a wider range. The open footpath along the north west boundary and connecting routes just beyond the north west of the site were in relatively regular use by walkers and dogwalkers at the time of survey, which may reduce suitability for this species. On balance the site is considered to be of low value to brown hare.

Amphibians 5.39 The desk study identified records of GCN within the grid squares SU 647 744 and SU 649 744 that overlie the off-site ponds included within the HSI assessment. In support of this, historic survey data indicates that the “Sulham Ponds” (understood to refer to a cluster that lies beyond 0.5km from Stoneham’s Farm) support three species of newt. No records for GCN were identified in the vicinity of Pond 1. Records of common toad (at Downsway School and at Brookfields School in Tilehurst) were also provided.

5.40 A single pond (Pond 1) was identified within 0.5km of Stoneham’s Farm, located at grid reference SU 65735 74185, 0.26km south west of the site. The pond, within Barefoots Copse LWS, scored ‘Below average’ suitability for breeding GCN (see Table 3).

5.41 Stoneham’s Farm lies c.260m to the north of Pond 1 at the closest point (beyond Long Lane and areas of both semi-natural habitats and residential development). Being largely arable, with further arable and residential land uses beyond, the site offers little habitat suitable for GCN – it is restricted to the hedgerow and narrow grassland areas at the periphery. Given the availability of immediate, more favourable habitat close to Pond 1, and the lack of any strong direct connectivity to Pond 1 or any others in the vicinity, GCN are discounted from further consideration in this assessment.

Table 3: HSI assessment score HSI parameter Score SI1. Geographic Location 1.00

SI2. Area 0.90

SI3. Permanence 0.90

SI4. Water quality 0.33

SI5. Shading 0.30

SI6. Presence of waterfowl 0.67

SI7. Presence of fish 0.67

SI8. Local pond density 0.70

SI9. Terrestrial habitat quality 1.00

SI10. Macrohyte cover 0.30

Total Below average 0.59

Reptiles 5.42 The Stoneham’s Farm site is largely comprised of arable land. Habitats potentially suitable for reptiles are therefore restricted to the narrow hedgerow and grass verges,

4544.011 Page 16 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment and the small area of rank grassland (c.10 x 30m max.) that has established north of the farmhouse. These may offer some opportunity for dispersal or shelter (where deadwood occurs or amongst areas with dense thatch at the base of the sward). At the time of survey, vegetation of the verges was over 1m in height, offering little opportunity for basking. The rear garden of the farmhouse may offer further opportunity, although the front appeared to be well-manicured.

Invertebrates 5.43 At Stoneham’s Farm, the hedgerows and associated verges and deadwood (both fallen and aerial deadwood) at the periphery form the most important feature for invertebrates. These are of particular value given the extent of arable land use to the west and residential development to the east. Deadwood may be of value to stag beetle; a number of records for this species were identified in the desk study.

4544.011 Page 17 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 TEP has prepared an Indicative Development Framework for the site, taking account of ecological constraints and opportunities. The conclusions set out below have informed the framework.

Designated Sites 6.2 Hartslock Wood SAC SSSI lies c.4.4km north west, beyond Pangbourne (principally designated for the species-rich chalk downland and ancient yew woodland) and Sulham & Tidmarsh Woods & Meadows SSSI c.1.1km west (designated for the mosaic of damp copses and seasonally flooded meadow communities). The scope for potential indirect impacts through recreational pressure on the qualifying features of these sites is relatively limited given the likely housing numbers but would need to be considered cumulatively with other development proposed in the local area. Nevertheless, implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures described below in respect of the local LWS would be anticipated to avoid any such significant impacts.

6.3 Five LNR were also identified within 5km – four are part of the West Reading Woodlands located 1.8-2.2km south east within the settlement boundary, and the fifth, Hosehill Lake, lies over 4km south beyond the M4. LNR are designated and managed to encourage people's awareness and enjoyment of their natural environment, as well as to protect wildlife habitats and natural features. Adverse indirect impacts on these local sites through recreational pressure are therefore considered unlikely based on anticipated housing numbers.

6.4 Five woodland LWS were identified within 1km, all of which are connected to the site via the local footpath network. Policy protection is afforded to LWS by Core Strategy policy CS17 (see Appendix 1). None of the LWS lie on or adjacent to Stoneham’s Farm and no direct impacts are predicted.

6.5 Potential recreational pressure on LWS could also arise at the Sulham Wood complex (c.65m at the closest point). Although this LWS lies marginally further away, it is directly connected via the local road and footpath network. Measures to avoid and mitigate such potential effects are set out in Chapter 7.0.

Habitats and Flora 6.6 Future development at Stoneham’s Farm would largely incur loss of arable land of limited ecological value. The trees, hedgerows and associated verges that form the principal features of value should be retained and it is assumed that this would be achieved through sensitive scheme design. Opportunities to incorporate these habitat types around and throughout any future development site are set out in Chapter 7.0. These may also be used to buffer the neighbouring properties, if aspects facing on to the site are found to be of ecological value. It is likely the farmhouse and garden would be lost.

Fauna

Birds 6.7 Nesting birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from damage and destruction.

6.8 In general terms, the woodland, trees, hedgerows and scrub on site offer habitat to nesting birds. The woodland (including woodland edge) habitats may also support a breeding bird assemblage of conservation value given the area, spatial extent and

4544.011 Page 18 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment position within the wider ecological mosaic. This value would be retained through sensitive design of the layout and vehicular accesses.

6.9 The loss of grassland for development would not be significant in terms of ground- nesting birds of conservation concern. Residential development would result in a partial change in bird species composition with some hedge and farmland species being replaced by those more typical of urban parks and residential gardens.

Bats 6.10 Bats are fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from killing or injury, and from disturbance at the place of rest. Bat roosts are also protected from obstruction, damage or destruction.

6.11 Trees in and around the site offer features suitable for bats to roost. The farm buildings (both on site and immediately adjacent) may also offer roosting opportunities. The Indicative Development Framework demonstrates that almost all mature trees can be retained, with losses possibly being required to create vehicular accesses into the sites. The farm buildings on site are not proposed to be retained.

6.12 Woodland edge and hedgerow habitats support commuting and foraging bats. Although further surveys are required to determine the species and level of activity more fully, particularly favourable habitats are those where there is strong connectivity with off-site habitats through the wider landscape, and where this is unlit (as around Long Lane, Barefoots Copse, and the connecting hedgerows).

6.13 Recommendations for survey of potential roosts and further bat activity survey are set out in Chapter 7.0. The survey findings would be used to inform detailed design, including the avoidance of potential impacts on any trees roosts identified wherever possible, and the requirement for a buffer on habitat features that support higher levels of bat activity (such as woodland edge habitats) to avoid any adverse effects of lighting.

6.14 If the farm buildings do contain a bat roost, and require to be demolished, there are numerous opportunities for provision of alternative roosts in any future development which would be anticipated to meet Natural England licensing requirements.

Badger 6.15 Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

6.16 No setts were recorded within 30m of the site. The ploughed field at the Stoneham’s Farm site was considered to be of poor value to badger for foraging. Furthermore, an extensive area of arable land would remain beyond the site boundary, available to the species. Opportunities to enhance habitats at the site boundaries and to promote connectivity through the local landscape, as part of a general benefit to biodiversity are set out in Chapter 7.0. No specific measures in respect of badger are recommended.

Brown Hare 6.17 Brown hare is listed in Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40(1) of the Act states that each public authority “must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

4544.011 Page 19 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 6.18 The site is of low value to brown hare. If present, future development at the site would displace any hares that may use the field as part of a wider range. However, given the large area of arable land that would remain available to the species, particularly in contrast to the relatively small area proposed for allocation, no discernible impact on the local population is anticipated.

Reptiles 6.19 Common lizard, slow worm, grass snake and adder are afforded protection against intentional killing and injury under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

6.20 Within Stoneham’s Farm, habitats suitable for reptiles are restricted to the peripheral hedgerow and grass verges, and the small area of rank grassland north of the farmhouse. Where these features will be lost to development, recommendations for provision of alternative habitat and for controlled clearance prior to construction are provided in Chapter 7.0.

Invertebrates 6.21 Deadwood features associated with the peripheral hedgerows offer habitat suitable for invertebrates and, the trees with more substantial aerial deadwood, potentially for stag beetle. Areas of rough grassland are relatively small and typically associated with narrow verges at the periphery of the arable field. The site is not therefore considered to be of high value to invertebrates nor likely to support an especially diverse assemblage.

6.22 Retention of habitats as set out above to avoid adverse impacts on designated sites, habitats and other fauna, are also anticipated to avoid adverse impacts invertebrates. No further survey is therefore recommended at this stage.

4544.011 Page 20 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Recommendations to avoid and minimise potential impacts are set out below for each of the ecological receptors in turn. Opportunities for enhancement in line with the National Planning Policy Framework are subsequently listed.

Designated Sites 7.2 No direct impacts on designated sites are predicted as a result of the proposed development at Stoneham’s Farm.

7.3 No significant indirect impacts associated with increased recreational activity within the woodland LWS in the locality are predicted given a) the relatively low number of dwellings proposed and b) provision of informal open space within the development (in accordance with local planning policy for green infrastructure; key extracts are provided in Appendix A). Detailed design of the open green space will seek to optimise both recreation and wildlife functions (see the subheading ‘Opportunities for Enhancement’ below).

Habitats and Flora 7.4 Trees and hedgerows should be retained wherever practicable. Those retained as part of the development design should be protected to avoid severance or compaction of roots, or damage to the branches during construction in accordance with BS5837:2012. Detailed recommendations are provided in the Arboricultural Implications Assessment (TEP reference 4544.02.001, August 2014). Where tree loss is unavoidable, replacement tree planting of appropriate age and species mix should be incorporated into the landscape proposals.

7.5 In the event that the north east boundary hedgerow would unavoidably be lost or severed, an assessment to determine if any would be considered ‘important’ under ecological criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 is recommended. Important hedgerows should be given particular consideration for retention and protection within any future development proposal.

7.6 Deadwood features within hedgerows and woodland should be retained. Where additional material is generated through felling or lopping, this should also be retained on site as a habitat feature, such as partially buried log piles created close to existing boundary features or to delineate any new features.

7.7 Sensitive lighting measures set out in a Lighting Strategy are recommended to ensure that nocturnal and crepuscular species are not deterred from retained or created wildlife features.

7.8 Benefits to both biodiversity and to recreational users may be delivered in the long- term through the site maintenance contract, or for more specialist tasks, through a Habitat Management Plan.

Fauna

Birds 7.9 Any unavoidable vegetation clearance should be scheduled outside the season during which birds are most likely to nest (March to August inclusive). Where this is not practicable, a nesting bird survey by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required immediately prior to the clearance, to ensure that no active bird nests will be damaged or disturbed.

4544.011 Page 21 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment Bats 7.10 The farmhouse and outbuildings in and abutting the site may offer opportunities for bats to roost. The farmhouse and outbuilding is likely to be lost to development, whilst the others abutting the site may be indirectly affected by artificial lighting (potentially causing abandonment of a roost, if present).

7.11 The hedgerows, trees and scrub are likely to provide foraging and dispersal opportunities for bats. Furthermore, several standard trees support features suitable for bats to roost. These form the key features recommended for retention. Whilst it is anticipated that any future development will retain the majority of such habitat, potential impacts may include localised habitat loss and indirect impacts of lighting.

7.12 Sensitive lighting, as referenced above, should take into account both construction and operation phases of development.

7.13 Further bat survey work is required in accordance with current best practice guidance (BCT, 2012) to fully determine the species of bat and level of activity present. Regarding bat roosts, survey would include daytime inspection of the buildings and trees potentially affected. Depending on the findings of the initial inspection, further nocturnal survey work may be required to ascertain the presence and status of any roosts. Regarding activity transect and static detector surveys, further survey across a range of seasons (spring/summer/autumn) is recommended to identify a more complete picture of any temporal variations in the species assemblage and level of activity. The survey findings would together inform detailed design. In the event that a bat roost is identified and would be unavoidably affected by the proposed development, a Natural England (NE) licence would be required to permit works.

7.14 As described under ‘Conclusions’ above, it is anticipated that detailed design would accommodate any tree roosts or areas of higher bat activity identified, wherever possible. There are numerous opportunities for provision of alternative roosts in any future development which would be anticipated to meet Natural England licensing requirements in the event that a roost was unavoidably to be affected.

7.15 The licence application must include mitigation proposals that demonstrate how the favourable conservation status of the bat(s) is maintained. Bat activity transect survey work will also be required, including the deployment of static bat detectors, in accordance with the guidelines to identify any key bat flight lines and inform future development proposals. The daytime inspection is not seasonally constrained but greater visibility is achieved when trees are out of leaf. Nocturnal roost surveys are typically required between May and August, and activity transects April to September (weather permitting).

Reptiles 7.16 Within the Stoneham’s Farm site, habitats suitable for reptiles are restricted to the peripheral hedgerow and grass verges, and the small area of rank grassland north of the farmhouse. To avoid the risk of killing and injury, clearance of the small area of rank grassland north of the farmhouse may be carried out in a controlled manner, for example, strimming the sward to 150mm and working toward retained habitats, before clearance to ground level, any debris at ground level would be deconstructed by hand. In the event that any reptiles are encountered, these would be released into retained habitats. A method statement would be set out to specify the approach (including identification of release locations) and suitably qualified personnel in advance of works. This may form part of a CEMP. Such work should be carried out during mid

4544.011 Page 22 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment March to mid October when reptiles are active and able to move under their own volition.

Invertebrates 7.17 The recommendations set out for habitats and fauna above would benefit the invertebrate assemblage as part of the general benefit to biodiversity.

Opportunities for Enhancement 7.18 The National Planning Policy Framework, para.118, encourages opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments. The implementation of opportunities to enhance biodiversity could assist in gaining credits under a Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment.

7.19 The development could contribute positively to the BOA objectives through new planting in and around the developable areas, particularly where this connects to existing wooded habitats in the local landscape.

7.20 Enhancement may be achieved by extending the semi-natural habitats within and around any future development, above that recommended as part of mitigation. Structural diversity of planting may be maximised, for example through the use of planting alongside existing trees, extending hedgerow length or allowing these to naturally widen, green trellis (wood or wire, which can also offer visual screening) and sowing of a diverse native grassland sward. Planting in and around the site should use a range of native species, or species otherwise known to benefit biodiversity, such as nectar-rich and berry-bearing species which offer foraging to birds and insects throughout the year. This applies to tree, shrub and herbaceous planting as well as to sown grassland mixes.

7.21 Wetland habitats may be created as part of SUDS, such as ephemerally wet swales and permanent standing water (accommodating health and safety requirements relating to public open space – shallow bank slope, etc), planted with species beneficial to wildlife. Wetland habitats can be of particular benefit where these are created in combination with other features such as hedgerows and deadwood piles.

7.22 During both construction and operational phases, good horticultural practice should be followed, using peat-free composts and mulches. Pesticides (weedkillers, insecticides, slug pellets and fungicides) should be non-residual and their use should be kept to a minimum; this of particular concern in the vicinity of the woodland LWS.

7.23 Bird and bat boxes may be incorporated in or onto the new buildings at appropriate locations, i.e. at the appropriate height and aspect, close to vegetation and away from artificial lighting. Models should be selected for locally appropriate species and the number of units informed by field survey data, taking into account the detailed development design. Examples for birds may include the integration of nest spaces within the eaves of a building, or specifically designed nest features such as the Schwegler N24 nest brick (suitable for tits, etc), the sparrow terrace, the Schwegler 1B box and the open-fronted Schwegler 2H (suitable for robins, etc). Examples of self-contained, self- cleaning (i.e. gap for droppings to fall out at the bottom of the structure) for bats may include the Habitat and Schwegler 1FR bat tube, Ibstock bat brick and bespoke features enclosed within the eaves.

4544.011 Page 23 December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment 8.0 REFERENCES

ARG UK (2010) Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. May 2010. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom

Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Bat Survey: Good Practice Guidelines. The Bat Conservation Trust, London

Harris S, Cresswell P and Jefferies D (1989) Surveying for Badger. Occasional Publication of the Mammal Society No. 9. Mammal Society, Bristol

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Phase 1 habitat Survey. JNCC. Peterborough

Natural England (2014) Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/ancient-woodland-standing-advice_tcm6- 37627.pdf

Natural England (various) Standing Advice for Protected Species [various] http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningdevelopment/spatialplanning/stan dingadvice/

Natural England (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Version: August 2001. English Nature, Peterborough

Oldham et al. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus. Herpetological Journal 10: 143-155

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

TVERC & BMERC (2009) Criteria for the Selection of Local Wildlife Sits in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre and Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre http://www.tverc.org/cms/sites/tverc/files/LWS%20criteria%20Nov%2009.pdf

4544.011 Page 24 December 2015 Version 1.0 Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

APPENDIX A Desk Study Information

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Site Location Plan

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Extracts from West Berkshire Council Core Strategy (adopted July 2012) and Supporting Key

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Extracts of Relevant Planning Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance

Core Strategy Policies

Biodiversity Policy CS 17 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Biodiversity and geodiversity assets across West Berkshire will be conserved and enhanced. Habitats designated or proposed for designation as important for biodiversity or geodiversity at an international or national level or which support protected, rare or endangered species, will be protected and enhanced. The degree of protection given will be appropriate to the status of the site or species in terms of its international or national importance. Development which may harm, either directly or indirectly, locally designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites and Local Geological Sites), or habitats or species of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity, or the integrity or continuity of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna will only be permitted if there are no reasonable alternatives and there are clear demonstrable social or economic benefits of regional or national importance that outweigh the need to safeguard the site or species and that adequate compensation and mitigation measures are provided when damage to biodiversity/geodiversity interests are unavoidable. In order to conserve and enhance the environmental capacity of the District, all new development should maximise opportunities to achieve net gains in biodiversity and geodiversity in accordance with the Berkshire Biodiversity Action Plan and the Berkshire Local Geodiversity Action Plan. Opportunities will be taken to create links between natural habitats and, in particular, strategic opportunities for biodiversity improvement will be actively pursued within the Biodiversity Opportunity Areas identified on the Proposals Map in accordance with the Berkshire Biodiversity Action Plan.

Green Infrastructure Policy CS 18 Green Infrastructure The District’s green infrastructure will be protected and enhanced. The Council will work with partners, including Parish Councils and the community to address the District’s green infrastructure needs and deficiencies as set out in the forthcoming Green Infrastructure SPD. New developments will make provision for high quality and multifunctional open spaces of an appropriate size and will also provide links to the existing green infrastructure network. Specific standards for provision within new developments will be identified in the Site Allocations and Delivery DPD and through the masterplanning for strategic sites. Developments resulting in the loss of green infrastructure or harm to its use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted. Where exceptionally it is agreed that an area of green infrastructure can be lost a new one of equal or greater size and standard will be required to be provided in an accessible location close by.

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Extracts of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (adopted 2013)

Green Infrastructure

(i) Open space

Responsible body West Berkshire Council

Strategies, plans and programmes South East Plan (2009) A Breath of Fresh Air: Sustainable Community Strategy, WBC Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development (SPG), WBC 2011 District Profile, WBC Children’s Play Strategy 2006, WBC West Berkshire Council Cultural Plan 2010 – 2015 Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan, WBC A Vision for the Future of our Canals and Rivers, British Waterways Audit of Green Open Space in West Berkshire 2006 (Rachel Sanderson for WBC) Open Space and Leisure Assessment of Need (July 2005), PMP for WBC Berkshire, Buckingham and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) Strategic Plan 2010- 2025 The Living Landscape Project 2008 – 2018, BBOWT and West Berkshire. Kennet and Avon Conservation Management Plan (2000), British Waterways (on behalf of Kennet and Avon Partnership). Waterways for Tomorrow, (June 2000) Defra Inland Waterways, Policy Advice note (July 2009), Town and Country Planning Associate with British Waterways England’s Historic Waterways: A Working Heritage (2009) British Waterways with English Heritage Government Strategy for the Inland Waterways of England and Wales – Waterways for Everyone (Draft consultation document) (December 2009), Defra Northcroft and Goldwell Parks Management Plan 2012-16 Linear Park Management Plan 2012-16 Thatcham Nature Discovery Centre Landscape Improvement Plan

Current situation The South East Plan defines Green Infrastructure (GI) as a network of multifunctional green spaces. Key assets include parks and gardens, natural and seminatural green spaces, green corridors (river and canal banks, cycleways, rights of way), outdoor sports facilities, amenity green spaces, provision for children and teenagers, allotments, community gardens, cemeteries and church yards, accessible countryside and green roofs and walls. The definition set out in the Core Strategy for West Berkshire also includes lakes and other waterways. The Council’s Countryside Service manages and maintains a large proportion of GI assets. The Countryside Service plays an important role in the creation and wellbeing of healthy communities through play, sport, nature conservation and quiet recreation. A key function of the service is the management of the nature conservation and recreational value of important nature conservation sites in the countryside, and access to the countryside through the public rights of way network. Various national bodies are also responsible for managing and maintaining other elements of GI within West Berkshire including Natural England (sites of national importance including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)) and British Waterways as the navigating 4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

authority. A large area of West Berkshire lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is managed by a Council of Partners, which includes West Berkshire Council. Some of the key assets that contribute to the GI network include: Snelsmore Common Country Park (over 100ha); The recently restored Greenham and Crookham Common (500ha); large areas with public access at Padworth, Bucklebury and Wokefield Commons, Hose Hill Lake, and Thatcham Reed Beds; An environmental education facility at the Thatcham Nature Discovery Centre 1168 kilometres of public rights of way (footpath, bridle way, byway) including two National Trails (The Ridgeway and the Thames Path); The Kennet and Avon Canal (45 kilometres of canal and associated towing path) and other river corridors; Henwick Worthy Sports Grounds in Thatcham (12 outdoor pitches for hockey, football and rugby and 2 cricket pitches); Green Flag Award Winning Parks at Holybrook and Northcroft / Goldwell; and 8 children’s play areas. North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) covers 74% of West Berkshire and also offers recreational benefit as an important area of accessible green space. However, the new North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2009-2014 refers to a study conducted in 2007 on accessible natural greenspace provision in the South East which found that the North Wessex Downs AONB has the smallest percentage (4%) of accessible natural greenspace of all the South East’s protected landscapes. In line with policy CC8 of the South East Plan, local authorities and partners will need to work together to plan, provide, and manage multi-functional green space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity as well as contributing to the social infrastructure of local areas to support future growth. The GI network in West Berkshire is generally well catered for. The key issue is the need for ongoing maintenance of, and qualitative improvements, to these existing assets as well as the adequate provision of multifunctional open spaces in new developments that link to the existing GI network. The Open Space and Leisure Assessment of Need has identified the need to improve the quality of existing public open space provision. This may be done in a number ways: Improving access and where required car parking to sites; Improving and enhancing play area provision; Improving infrastructure such as paths, fences, outside furniture, interpretation, outdoor sports courts and pitches and changing rooms, structures, landscaping and sports equipment; An additional floodlit artificial pitch at Henwick Worthy; and The goal should be to raise the quality of existing provision so that all areas meet the recognised minimum standard as defined by the Green Flag Award judging criteria.

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Site Designations within 1km provided by Thames Valley Environmental Record Centre

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Species Data Within 1km Provided by Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

MAGIC Map 5km Search for Designated Wildlife Sites

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

MAGIC Map 5km Search for Designated Wildlife Sites

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England) Reference 5 Name Chilterns Date Designated Mar-90 Hyperlink http://www.landscapesforlife.org.uk/chilterns-aonb.html Statutory Area in Sq.km 838.3 Reference 27 Name North Wessex Downs Date Designated Dec-72 Hyperlink http://www.landscapesforlife.org.uk/north-wessex-downs-aonb.html Statutory Area in Sq.km 1731.05 Local Nature Reserves (England) Reference 1009369 Name BLUNDELLS COPSE Hectares 5.55 Hyperlink http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?themeid=1009369 Reference 1009372 Name LOUSEHILL COPSE Hectares 13.03 Hyperlink http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?themeid=1009372 Reference 1009624 Name HOSEHILL LAKE Hectares 23.59 Hyperlink http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?themeid=1009624 Reference 1009628 Name ROUND COPSE Hectares 1.66 Hyperlink http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?themeid=1009628 Reference 1009374 Name MCILROY PARK Hectares 11.98 Hyperlink http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?themeid=1009374

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Name Reference 1000522 4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Natural England Contact Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 0.22 Citation 1000354 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1000354 Name Reference 1000499 Natural England Contact Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 75.75 Citation 1003937 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1003937 Name Reference 1000745 Natural England Contact Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 41.83 Citation 1001933 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1001933 Special Areas of Conservation (England) Name HARTSLOCK WOOD Reference UK0030164 Hectares 29.4 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0030164

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

MAGIC Map 1km Search for Habitat Inventory Data

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Wildlife Site Citations

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

West Reading Woodlands & Local Nature Reserves Biodiversity Opportunity Area (extract)

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

APPENDIX B Target Notes

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Target Note Description ref. 1 Intact species-rich hedgerow with trees extends along the north boundary and forms a closed canopy over the footpath with the hedgerow and trees to the rear of the private gardens of Ridgemount Crescent. Provides an unlit linear feature suitable for bats to forage and commute. The majority of mature trees were pedunculate oak Quercus robur with frequent sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus. Several specimens offer features suitable for bats to roost. Additional hedgerow species included abundant blackthorn Prunus spinosa, with occasional hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, elder Sambucus nigra, English elm Ulmus procera and at rare occurrence, holly Ilex aquifolium. Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. was frequent climbing throughout. Fallen deadwood (possibly old elm) was noted within the base of the hedgerow. An unmown verge c.2m wide runs inside the hedgerow, with abundant soft brome Bromus hordeus, sterile brome Anisantha sterilis, and frequent false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius and perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne. Italian rye-grass Lolium multiflorum, bent Agrostis sp., couch Elymus sp., green alkanet Pentaglottis semperivens, cleavers Galium aparine and white clover Trifolium repens were all occasional with field pansy Viola arvensis, common vetch Vicia sativa, common cat’s-ear Hypocharis radicata, smooth hawk’s-beard Crepis capillaris, fox-and-cubs Pilosella aurantiaca, ragwort Senecio sp., mouse-ear Cerasteum fontanum and red clover Trifolium pratense rare. 2 Species-poor intact hedgerow dominated by blackthorn, which has grown to over 4m height with bramble and rose Rosa sp. climbing throughout. Two mature pedunculate oak with aerial deadwood stand within the hedge. In areas away from the overhanging tree canopy, bracken Pteridium aquilinum is locally dominant in the verge. False oat-grass and hogweed Heracleum sphondylium are abundant here, with broad-leaved willowheb Epilobium montanum, nipplewort Lapsana communis and long-stalked crane’s-bill Geranium columbinum all at rare occurrence. 3 Grassland verge 2.5m (max.) wide dominated by rye-grass. The vegetation is less diverse than the eastern end of the north boundary – pineappleweed and barley Hordeum sp. are locally abundant, with occasional shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris, scentless mayweed Triplospermum inodoratum, and mugwort Artemesia vulgare and red poppy Papaver rhoeas rare. 4 Ploughed field colonised by a small number of common and widespread species – pineappleweed Matricaria discoidea, creeping thistle, prickly sow thistle, smooth hawk’s- beard, field bindweed Convulvulus arvensis and other such species associated with the peripheral vegetation. Skylark was noted singing in the fields to the north west and west of the Stoneham’s Farm site. 5 The south west boundary fence is marked by patches of bramble and elder scrub. The semi-improved grassland verge, 1-2m wide, supported abundant false oat-grass and red fescue Festuca rubra, with frequent soft brome. Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, yarrow Achillea millefolium, cow parsely Anthriscus sylvestris, common field speedwell Veronica persica, mouse-ear, long-stalked crane’s-bill, sheep’s sorrel Rumex acetosella, common cat’s-ear, nipplewort and field bindweed were all occasional, with tufted hair-grass Deschampsia caespitosa, cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata and foxglove Digitalis pupurea at rare occurrence. Several banded demoiselle were incidentally noted skirting amongst the sward. Farther south, the sward became increasingly rank with stands of tall ruderal herb – locally dominant common nettle Urtica dioica, cleavers, hogweed and cow parsley. The northern end of this boundary extends around the paddocks and stables to meet with an established hedgerow with trees. Although beyond the red line boundary under assessment, this hedgerow with trees forms the south western boundary of the Stoneham’s Farm site as shown in the SHLAA. The trees are typically pedunculate oak with blackthorn dominant in the hedgerow, and fallen deadwood at the base. 6 Outbuildings of ‘The Barn’ which border the Stoneham’s Farm site. Single storey brick buildings – two sections with corrugated sheet panel roof, one with hipped tile roof. Brickwork appeared tight, no obvious gaps below the roof tiles noted (as viewed from the arable field). Eaves facing the field appeared to be packed with insulation; occasional gaps were covered in cobwebs. Roots protrude from the southern gable, again, gaps appeared to be cobwebbed. No sign of bat activity noted at the time of the extended Phase 1. 4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

Target Note Description ref. 7 Concrete clad outbuilding of 218 Long Lane with tiled roof, gable end wall of which borders the Stoneham’s Farm site. Mortar below the verge tiles appears tight. Further views of roof restricted from within the field. 8 Established trees overhanging the site, including apple Malus sp. and oak, with dense blackthorn and bramble below. 9 Garden of 216 Long Lane marked by ornamental shrubs (cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus, various conifers, etc) c.4m height and a trimmed box hedge to the south west, an ivy Hedera helix-clad fence to the north west and line of mature birch Betula sp. with cherry Prunus sp., hawthorn and lilac Syringa vulgaris below to the north east. Mature ash Fraxinus excelsior birch and sycamore front Long Lane. Note that no survey was carried out within the property grounds. 10 Farmhouse – 216 Long Lane – a two storey brick building with hipped tiled roof. Windows show that at least part of the roof space is given over to dwelling rooms. 11 Concrete panel outbuilding with corrugated sheet panel roof and weatherboard trim across north west gable end. Several windows open and/or missing and a small, seemingly superficial gap noted below one of the weatherboards. 12 An area of rank grassland established in the absence of ploughing – mechanical debris lies below. False oat-grass, creeping thistle and green alkanet abundant, with bramble, ragwort, hogweed, broad-leaved willowherb, cleavers and common nettle also present. Banded demoiselle again noted in amongst the sward. 13 Intact species-rich roadside hedgerow with trees. Hedge dominated by blackthorn with hawthorn, field maple Acer campestre, sycamore, holly and elm also present, and bramble, ivy and field rose Rosa arvense climbing throughout. Standard trees include two pedunculate oak and a sycamore. Verge at the base of the hedge c.1m wide, with similar species composition to that described above.

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

APPENDIX C Bat Survey Results

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

1.0 METHODS

General Details

Site Name Tilehurst, Berkshire Job Number 4544.05 Doc. Ref 4544.011 Site Location Tilehurst, Berkshire Survey Locations Stoneham’s Farm Date(s) Activity transect undertaken on 26th August 2014. Static monitoring between 26th August and 29th August 2014. Methods Activity Transect Survey A walked transect was undertaken during August 2014 to sample bat activity during the peak season. The route encompassed the site and off-site habitats nearby. The transect was walked twice during the survey.

Heterodyne (Magenta/Pettersson D230) and frequency division recorders (Anabat SD1 and SD2) were used and the number of bat passes was counted for three minutes at each designated transect stop. Bat passes and observations were also noted for the route sections in-between stops (walks).

Standardised methods of measuring and recording weather parameters were used e.g. cloud cover in octares and wind on the Beaufort scale.

Static Monitoring The Anabat Express frequency division detector was placed in the north east boundary hedgerow record bat activity over a period of three nights. The detectors were scheduled to record 30 minutes after sunset until 15 minutes before sunrise. Activity indices are calculated by total number of bats divided by total number of survey hours (28.5hrs per detector during the sample period).

Analysis Data is presented to show number of contacts per species and bat activity index. The activity index is calculated as bats passes per hour (pph) i.e. the total number of contacts recorded for the duration of survey divided by the total number of survey hours (e.g. 10 bat passes during 2hr survey = 5pph). For bat activity levels illustrated in the transect maps, indices have been calculated by extrapolated data at point stops (e.g. a total of 5 bat passes in a single 3min stop = 100pph).

Big bat species (Noctule, Serotine & Leisler’s) were grouped together during analysis and presented as ‘Big Bat Species’. This is considered sufficient for the general aims of survey/data collection (to gain an overall impression of bat activity). Where confidence levels are relatively high in species level identification from sonograms, this information has been included in the evaluation. Constraints One scoping survey and static monitoring for three consecutive nights was undertaken during the peak bat activity season in August. This provides an indication of the range of species and level of activity in and around the sites activity during the latter part of the peak season.

Bat detectors have limitations in the likelihood of acoustically detecting all bat species present. Due to the variation in bat calls, some species are less likely to be detected due to low amplitude (e.g. brown long-eared bats) or high frequency (e.g. horseshoe bats). Although the sites lie toward the edge of the geographical range of horseshoe bats, brown long-eared bats are relatively common in the area of the site. Lack of recorded brown long-eared bat calls does not therefore necessarily indicate actual absence on site; consideration must be given to the data arising from each of the survey methods carried out.

Echolocation calls were analysed using AnalookW 4.1d software by Candice Howe, trained to Analook Analysis Level 3. A standard ‘All bats filter’ was used to filter out background noise as required. Surveyors Licenced bat surveyors (Level 2) Mike Freeman and Candice Howe assisted by experienced bat surveyors Mike Brown and Anthony Carr. Drawing Ref G4544.018.1A

Transect Routes

The transect began at Stoneham’s Farmhouse and looped the field boundary anti-clockwise, along a mature hedge and tree line, to Long Lane. Surveyors then headed south along Long Lane which is tree-lined and to a field of grazed pasture farther south, opposite Vicarage Wood. The route followed the wooded field boundary in a clockwise direction before returning north up Long Lane to a stop at the southern corner of Stonehams Farm.

2.0 RESULTS

Transect Routes

Species Pp: Common pipistrelle Pg: Soprano Pipistrelle Psp: pipistrelle species Nn: Noctule Msp: Myotis species Es: Serotine Eptesicus serotinus

Date 26/08/14 Start 20:40 Finish 23:23 Min. Air Temp 12.9 Rain No Sunset 20:45 (°C) Start cloud Start Wind Anabat SD2 cover/Finish level/Finish 7/8; 0/8 0; 1 Detectors Magenta cloud cover wind level

(oktas) (Beaufort scale) Species Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Pp) Present Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmeaus (Pg)

Total Number of Bat Contacts Per Species 140

120

100 contacts 80 bat

of 60

40 Number 20

0 Pg Pp

Passes/Hr Pp: 48.53, Pg: 3.68 Overall Bat 52.2pph Activity Index

Static Monitoring

Location In hedgerow along the north east boundary of the field. Survey Start Date: 26.08.14 Finish Date 29.08.14 27 Hours Species Big Bat Sp My Unknown Pp Pg Psp Passes/Hr 0.19 0.0 0.0 2.70 0.30 0.0 Overall bat activity for location 3.19pph

Bats Activity Index by Species Recorded at Stonehams Farm 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

passes/hour 1.00

0.50

0.00 Bigbatsp Pg Pp Bats/hour 0.19 0.30 2.70

3.0 EVALUATION

Bat Presence/Species Composition Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule and serotine bats were identified on site. In addition unspecified species of Myotis, pipistrelle and ‘big bat’ (noctule, Leisler’s and serotine) were noted. While common pipistrelles were found to be relatively abundant across the site, activity of the other bat species was lower. The Myotis species and serotine were only recorded at Site 033. Noctules were recorded in the south of site (opposite Hall Place farm buildings).

Spatial Hotspots The transect survey identified the northern boundary of Stoneham’s Farm as having high levels of bat activity (over 41pph) comprising of common and soprano pipistrelle foraging. The first bats (of both species) were recorded 26mins after sunset, suggesting this area is relatively close to a roost site and is used as an initial feeding area. Common and soprano pipistrelles were also observed foraging along this boundary on the second circuit repetition of the transect, some 1h41mins after sunset. Activity was also found to be concentrated in the southern tip of the field which was used for foraging later in the evening. Long Lane had low levels of bat activity earlier in the evening, with higher levels of activity later in the evening (>41pph). The west/south west boundary of the field supported relatively low levels of bat activity.

Static monitoring data identified common pipistrelle, soprano, pipistrelle and big bat species in this area. Common pipistrelle was most active in this area (2.70pph) with lower levels of soprano (0.30pph) and big bat species (0.19pph).

Temporal Peaks in Activity As data was only recorded during one sample period it is not possible to identify temporal peaks in activity.

4.0 IMPLICATIONS

Current survey results show that the sites are each used by a number of bat species for foraging and potentially for commuting.

The following key areas were noted as foraging habitat with high levels of bat activity:

 Mature tree-line along the northern boundary of Stoneham’s Farm;  Southern tip of the Stoneham’s Farm Site;  The wooded corridor of Long Lane;

Any future development on adjacent land should respect these boundaries and habitats used by bats, with particular consideration of vegetation cover and light levels. Sensitive lighting schemes should be adopted on any development in the vicinity of these features to avoid light spill and the displacement of insect abundance which can negatively affect bat foraging habitat.

It is recommended that further activity surveys and monitoring are undertaken over a range of seasons (spring/summer/autumn) to identify a more complete picture of any temporal variations in the species assemblage and level of activity, which should be taken into consideration as part of any future development design.

During the transect surveys a number of trees within the site and along the site boundaries appeared to have potential to support roosting bats due to the presence of features such as holes/cracks crevices or dense ivy. An assessment to identify tree roosts by a suitably qualified bat consultant is therefore recommended. This would typically entail a daytime assessment from ground level, ideally whilst trees are out of leaf, and where features with roost potential are identified, subsequent targeted nocturnal roost surveys of any trees with bat potential that will be directly or indirectly affected by works.

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX D Badger Survey Information

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0

RESULTS

Stonehams Farm

No evidence of badger activity recorded during the survey of July 2014.

Ploughed arable field undergoing natural colonisation at the Stonehams Farm site

Surveyed Land within Vicarage Wood

Subsidiary sett identified on the northern edge of Vicarage Wood at approximate grid reference SU65373 74650, over 100m from Stonehams Farm. Two active entrances and less than five disused entrances were recorded. Fresh dung pits were found in the vicinity of the sett. The sett was part-covered in dense vegetation at the time of survey.

Active entrances and fresh dung pits of the subsidiary sett

Stoneham’s Farm, Tilehurst, Berkshire Ecological Assessment

DRAWINGS

4544.011 Appendices December 2015 Version 1.0 Key Site Boundary H Target notes E Scattered scrub ! Scattered broad-leaved trees VVVVVV Native species-rich intact hedge Species-poor intact hedge VI VI VI Native species-rich hedge and trees I I I I I I Species-poor hedge and trees

TN3 Fence Dense/continuous scrub S I S I SI SISemi-improved neutral grassland S I S I SI SI I I I I S I S I SI SIImproved grassland I I I I Tall ruderal herbs A A A A Arable TN2 A A A A A A A A Amenity grassland A A A A Introduced shrub Buildings Hardstanding Private residential gardens TN4 TN1

INSET MAP

TN11 TN12 TN10 TN13 E AN L TN5 NG LO TN6 TN9 Kilometres

TN7 0 0.5 1 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 TN8 Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 Fax 01925 844002 email [email protected]

Project: TILEHURST, BERKSHIRE

Title: PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY STONEHAMS FARM

Drawing No: G4544.003.02.4

Date: TEP Drawing Ref: 04-07-2014 G4544.003.02.4

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: 0 10 20 40 JS SS NC DRIVE CONIFER 1 1

7

6

13 90.3m 1

8

1

7 Key

8

0 Transect stops: 5

2 Pie charts show percentage of

Pike 1

8 Croft 4 bat species recorded during stop interval

Silver Stoneleigh

Howe 1 9

1 Stop reference «¬S3 S# P ath (u No bat activity m) 2 El 1

90.2m 3 8 Symonds 9 9 1 1 Mead Low level of activity T LB r a c k 1 01 to 50 bat contacts/hour

T 4 9 N 1 U

E O Medium level of activity S

M

O E LLVIEW L HI

G C CLOSE 51 to 100 bat contacts/hour TEP02 D I r R 10

5 0

9 1 1 High level of activity

9 over 101 bat contacts/hour

1

9 7 Transect walks: Showing levels of bat activity Stonehams recorded during walk interval Stonehams Farm Farm S2 6 «¬ 16 No bat activity S4 5 89.6m «¬ 5 S1 W 0 a «¬ rd Low level of activity 01 to 20 bat contacts/hour B 1 NG d O y L NE LA Post LING Medium level of activity 21 to 40 bat contacts/hour 210 TIL Oakwood SE 1 CLO 91 9 10 4 8 High levels of activity over 41 bat contacts/hour Number of bats & flight direction The 1 El Brambles 4 # 89.7m Sub # The Barn 82.2m Sta (colour indicates species) 21 8 The 2 Acorns Bat species identification S9 D AR «¬ LA K N Bluebells E " Pipistrellus Pipistrellus - Common pipistrelle

Field View Pipistrellus Pygmaeus - Soprano pipistrelle 28 "

1 90.2m

2 r Static Detector

1 5 3 4 1 W 2 G IL A L R O 6 Vicarage D W 3 E H Wood 1 N I 6 S 2 G H INSET MAP W a W 2 O T A 1 K H Y R 4 3 N T O E H 6 L L 1 45

86.5m 7 1 5 4 1

1 2 1 1 1 E 2 G Y A A 3 R A W IC D 1 2 V O 1 5 O 7 2 W 2 0 51 S5 6 1 11 5 6 «¬ 1 3

1 7 7 1 8 88.4m 23 3 2

4 2 1 4 1 5 5

4 3 N 1 R 3 1 O 3 1 H 2 2 T E 3 3 P K S 29 C O 3 A L L B C 0 GE 3 VICARA 63 Kilometres TEP01 AY S 2 OOD W U 9 7 W 0a L 3 3 H 8 H A 5 I M G 0 0.25 0.5 1 L E r L N N O L A L 18 43 Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2014. «¬S8 All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673 1 7 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

1 4

3 El Sub 4 Genesis Centre S6 Sta «¬ 73 Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH 91.9m 92.5m Tel 01925 844004 Fax 01925 844002

2 Barefoots 4 email [email protected] Copse

Back Project: Lane TILEHURST, BERKSHIRE

T Pond O O 72 F E E S R O S11 A L Title: «¬ B C BAT TRANSECTS 93.2m SONEHAMS FARM S7 TEP03 GP ¬ « 4 1 r 6 Drawing No: G4544.019 6 0

The Mud House Date: TEP Drawing Ref: S10 11 «¬ 15-12-2015 G4544.019

h t ) a m P u Metres ( Drawn: Checked: Approved: 0 20 40 80 JS CH JC

r Key Site Boundary

No Additional Badger Information

INSET MAP

E AN L NG LO

Metres 0 250 500 1,000

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

Genesis Centre Birchwood Science Park Warrington WA3 7BH Tel 01925 844004 Fax 01925 844002 email [email protected]

Project: TILEHURST, BERKSHIRE

Title: BADGER SURVEY STONEHAM FARM Drawing No: G4544.05.001A

Date: TEP Drawing Ref: 13.08.2014 G4544.05.001A

Metres Drawn: Checked: Approved: 0 10 20 40 CM SS NC