Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement Between Austens Bridge and Junction Rd)

Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austens Bridge and Junction Rd)

Ecological Surveys

October 2017 - May 2018

Reports:

Arboricultural Appraisal - May 2018

Badger Survey - January 2018

Bat survey - January 2018

Dormouse Survey - January 2018

Primary Great Crested Newt Survey - January 2018

Reptile Survey - October 2017 Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)

Arboricultural Appraisal

May 2018

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Executive Summary

Introduction Complete Land Management Ltd (CLM) was appointed to carry out a woodland appraisal on all significant trees and vegetation along a section of disused railway between Junction Road and ‘Austins Bridge’ east of Robertsbridge. We were further instructed to assess and report on the general condition, vitality and estimated remaining contribution of any significant trees on site with a view to retaining them as part of a potential development proposal. The site visits and inspections were carried out by Ben Williams on the 8th May 2018. Conditions were sunny, dry and calm with good visibility.

Overall, the condition of the shrub layer is generally fair, but some areas are in poor condition with some large gaps. Some noteworthy specimen trees were recorded, mainly for their arboricultural and landscape values, but ecological features were also highlighted where appropriate. The habitat features recorded are fairly sporadic throughout the site and mainly confined to individual trees, which host multiple features.

Consideration should be given to the local visual impact of any required tree and vegetation removal. There should be sufficient remaining space on either side of the proposed trackway to retain a green visual buffer which will considerably lessen the impact of the proposal, enhancing it where necessary with enrichment planting.

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Contents

Introduction 1

Report on site visit and survey 2

Conclusions 4

Site photographs 6

Appendix 1 8

Appendix 2 9

Appendix 3 15

Appendix 4 16

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex

Introduction

Complete Land Management Ltd (CLM) were appointed to carry out a woodland appraisal on all significant trees and vegetation along a section of disused railway between Junction Road and ‘Austins Bridge’ east of Robertsbridge. We were further instructed to assess and report on the general condition, vitality and estimated remaining contribution of any significant trees on site with a view to retaining them as part of a potential development proposal.

This report aims to: • Broadly quantify the condition and quality of the woodland area. • Highlight and evaluate specific trees/tree groups as necessary according to their amenity, arboricultural or ecological features. • Identify any relevant legal constraints on trees within the site or its surroundings. • Assess the likely impact of the removal of identified trees/tree groups.

Survey method / parameters The trees were inspected from ground level, with the aid of binoculars where necessary. No climbing inspections, soil sampling or detailed internal investigations were undertaken. Any identification of fungal fruiting bodies was made on a visual basis only. Further information on the surveying of trees and collecting of tree data is included at Appendix IV.

Where necessary, tools such as a sounding mallet and a metal probe were used to help determine the presence, extent and depth of internal decay or cavitation. If significant decay is discovered which requires further detailed investigation, we may recommend the use of advanced equipment such as decay detection technology or Airspade soil displacement in order to fully inform future management.

Documents supplied: • CLM Ecological Appraisal RVR Junction Road to Austins Bridge - dated June 2017

An Ordnance Survey (OS) plan of the site was purchased externally for use on our GIS device and used as a base to produce our Tree Location Plan – a copy of which is included at Appendix III.

Limitations Trees are dynamic self-optimising organisms that grow in reaction to stimulus of their immediate surroundings and the effects of wider environmental conditions. Consequently, tree health and condition will inevitably change over time and therefore any comments made in this report can only be considered valid for two years from the date of the initial site visit. This report does not take into account any sudden unforeseen deterioration in the condition of inspected trees due to factors such as extreme weather conditions, accidents including chemical or fire damage, mechanical damage, or where

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018 recommended works have not been carried out to current professional arboricultural standards or within prescribed timeframes.

This report is concerned with the arboricultural aspects of the site only. Any non- arboricultural observations were made from a non-expert’s view.

Due to the nature of living organisms and the variation of seasonal growing conditions the observations and recommendations made within this report are limited to one occasion, during a particular time of year and stage in the life cycle. Therefore, elements such as the presence of annual fruiting bodies of wood decay fungi or foliar disease may not have been highlighted due to their natural absence at the time of the survey.

Report on site visit and survey

Site description The site forms part of a railway line which originally ran between Tenterden and Bodiam until the 1960s when it was dismantled and management ceased. Natural regeneration has since taken over much of the site. An informal footpath now runs through the centre of the site which appears to be of low use.

The site is bounded to the north and south by an arable field, to the east by Junction Road and the west by Austins Bridge. The site measures approximately 15 metres wide by 470 metres in length.

The Trees - Observations The site is comprised of mostly broadleaved semi natural woodland with sections of dense mature scrub covering around 1 hectare.

The canopy layer consists of sporadic sections of Common ash Fraxinus excelsior and English oak Quercus robur, with a fairly consistent understorey comprised of field maple Acer campestre, goat willow Salix caprea, crack willow Salix fragilis, elder Sambucus nigra and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. A small number of mature black Italian poplars Populus x canadensis ‘Serotina’ were observed which are thought to have been planted (T3 and T11.)

Linear features of ash were noted toward the north-eastern end of the site along the existing boundary line which appear to have been pollarded at approximately 1 metre above ground level, presumably for visibility purposes when the railway line was in use.

Some symptoms of Ash dieback Hymenoscyphus fraxineus were observed whilst on site. Mostly notably a variation in crown density paired with characteristic epicormic growth on stems and branches. Whilst such symptoms are fairly minor, observations were widespread throughout the woodland. This is likely to shorten the safe useful lifespan of the majority of the site’s ash trees.

Several willow trees toward the centre of the site were in fair to poor structural condition, with significant cavities and cracks in branches and stems (T5, T6 and T9.) Such features may however be utilised by saproxylic invertebrates, birds and bats.

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Species composition Below is a table outlining the species composition at the four main stages of the woodland.

WOODLAND STAGE HEIGHT

GROUND FIELD SHRUB CANOPY

- Bramble - Goat Willow (Y) - Field maple (M) - Common ash (SM) Rubus fructicosus Salix caprea Acer campestre Fraxinus excelsior - Stinging Nettle - Elder (SM) - Hawthorn (Y) - English oak (SM) Urtica dioica Sambucus nigra Crataegus monogyna Quercus robur - Ivy - Field maple (Y) - Common ash (Y) - Crack willow (M) Hedera helix Acer campestre Fraxinus excelsior Salix fragilis - Common hogweed - Hawthorn (Y) - English oak (Y) - Black Italian poplar Heracleum Crataegus monogyna Quercus robur (M) Populus x sphondylium - Dog rose - Crack willow (SM) canadensis ‘Serotina’ - Cleavers Rosa Canina Salix fragilis - Silver Birch (SM)

SPECIES IDENTIFIED SPECIES Galium aparine - Dogwood - Goat Willow (SM) Betula pendula Cornus sanguinea Salix caprea - Hazel (SM) Corylus avellana - Fallen/deadwood - Standing deadwood - Standing deadwood - Aerial deadwood Saproxylic Soft rotting timber Soft rotting timber Bat roost sites, bird invertebrates, reptiles, with fungi present – with fungi present – nest sites amphibians habitat for saproxylic habitat for saproxylic - Cavities/woodpecker - Wind throw/racks invertebrates invertebrates holes Bird nesting sites, - Hazel Coppice - Cracked/split stems Bat roost sites, bird hibernation areas Dormouse foraging Bat roost sites nest sites - Ivy at tree bases and nest site - Cracked/split stems Hibernation areas or Bat roost sites cover for Badgers - Aerial fungi

HABITAT FEATURES HABITAT - Dense bramble and Highlights decaying ruderal vegetation timber and habitat Cover potential

All recorded tree data is within our Tree Schedule table included at Appendix II. All recorded information on tree groups is labelled on our tree Location Plan included at Appendix III.

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Legal status of the trees A desk study was carried out to check for statutory protection in place on the site’s trees. The Rother District Council website was accessed which revealed that the site is not within a Conservation area. The search revealed that there are no Tree Preservation Orders on or adjacent to the site.

In the instance that trees are protected it is essential that the Local Planning Authority’s consent is obtained prior to the commencement of any non-exempt works to protected trees. Failure to do so may lead to prosecution and incur substantial fines. See Appendix IV for more information on the statutory protection of trees.

Management priorities and principles Management priorities are determined by the surveyor at the time of inspection.

The skilful and sensitive management of trees is key to their successful long-term safe retention. Any work that exposes a tree’s internal woody structure is a form of damage that can be detrimental to the long-term health of the tree. The best form of tree management is one of ‘non-intervention unless absolutely necessary’ and the use of a contractor approved by the Arboricultural Association (AA) will ensure any unnecessary works are avoided and management recommendations are carried out to the highest possible standards, in accordance with the principles of good arboricultural practice and current industry best practice recommendations. A list of approved AA contractors can be found at: http://www.trees.org.uk/find-a-professional

Conclusions

There is a proposal to reinstate a railway line through the site and due to the space and working clearances required this may result in the loss of a number of semi-mature trees as well as sections of scrub, mainly focused towards the centre of the site.

It is noted that there is a field margin averaging around 3 metres in width beyond both the north and south sides of the site boundaries which consist partly of mixed dense scrub forming an effective visual buffer which will considerably lessen the local visual impact of potential tree removals. This will be enhanced further by the retention of trees and shrubs within the site boundaries.

The potential tree loss could be successfully mitigated by enrichment planting, which would be particularly beneficial towards the western half of the site as it mainly consists of poor quality low level scrub with some large gaps. Increasing tree cover in the western half is particularly beneficial as it will enhance the quality of the woodland area as a whole, by improving continuity of visual appeal and cover.

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

In summary, retaining all parts of the shrub layer should not unduly constrain a favourable development. Its partial removal can be mitigated by enrichment planting to increase the quality and continuity of the woodland. The removal of specimen trees can also be mitigated by replacement planting, but consideration should be given to species selection to avoid repeated pruning works for space requirements by a potential development.

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Site photographs

Fig 1: T1 Ash viewed from the north east, with a Fig 2: T1 Ash viewed from the south, with lower large cavity in a primary branch stem cavity. The two cavities likely coalesce.

Fig 3: T7 Oak viewed from the south east Fig 4: T9 Crack willow viewed from the south with multiple habitat features

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Fig 5: Semi mature ash trees displaying minor symptoms of Ash dieback (Hymenoschyphus fraxineus)

Fig 6: View of the western part of the site where the tree cover is more sporadic

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Appendix 1 Key to Accompanying visual inspections

Age Classes Young (Y)  Under 10 years old, either self-seeded or newly planted. Semi mature (SM)  Tree has not reached ultimate maturity.  Below a quarter of usual life expectancy.

Mature (M)  The tree’s final crown dimensions have generally been reached.  Very little increase in trunk girth is expected.

Over mature (OM)-  Tree has reached maximum expected species dimensions and symptoms of decline are present.  Tree exhibits signs that energy stores are depleting such as:  Poor reaction wood growth;  Dieback or branch shutdown in upper crown or on branch tips, paired with increased epicormic growth on the lower stem.

Veteran (V)  Usually a very old tree, having survived longer in relation to others of same species.  Home to a host of interdependent plants, animals and micro- organisms that interact and contribute to the longevity of the tree.  Exhibits signs of extensive decline such as:  Loose bark or heartwood cavities;  Excessive young growth on main stem or branches.

Definitions of works urgency and inspections frequency

Works urgency Inspection frequency Critical Required within 30 Very high Reinspect within 6 days months High Priority Required within 30 High Reinspect within 12 days months Medium priority Required within 12 Moderate Reinspect within 2 months years Low priority Required within 24 Low Reinspect within 3 months years None No works required Very Low Reinspect within 5 at this time years

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Appendix 2 Detailed tree assessment table

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Appendix 3 Tree Location Plan

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018

Appendix 4 Statutory Restrictions to Tree Work

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) In accordance with sections 197 and 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Local Planning Authorities have powers to make Tree Preservation Orders, to protect trees when consenting to development or where deemed expedient in the interests of amenity and their value to the quality of the local environment. The Act and associated government guidance recognises the positive impact that trees can have on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public and those who live there.

Typically, trees worthy of protection include those visible from a public place (such as a road or footpath), although this does not always need to be the case. Trees may be worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development. The value of trees may be enhanced by their scarcity; the value of a group of trees or woodland may be collective only. The tree/s individual and/or collective visual impact is assessed as well as their wider visual impact, taking into account their suitability to the local setting. Other factors such as importance as a wildlife habitat may be taken into account. The benefit of protecting trees may be for their present or future contribution to amenity or the environment.

Tree Preservation Orders are one means of protecting trees. Once a TPO is placed on a tree or trees, the owner must obtain written consent from the Local Planning Authority before undertaking any works – this can take up to 8 weeks or longer in exceptional circumstances. A TPO does not necessarily prevent works being undertaken to a protected tree, rather, it allows the Local Planning Authority to assess (through a free application process) the acceptability of the proposed works, having regard to their extent, arboricultural justification (as defined by the relevant British Standards), the condition and amenity value of the tree/s, and their setting. It prevents otherwise unnecessary loss of or damage to trees whilst allowing for appropriate maintenance to be undertaken.

Undertaking work to protected trees without Local Authority consent is a criminal offence carrying fines of up to £20,000 for wilful destruction and up to £2,500 for wilful damage.

Conservation Area In accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) (1990) and in consultation with English Heritage, Local Authorities have powers to designate areas of special architectural or historical interest as ‘Conservation Areas’ to preserve their character and appearance. Trees can form an intrinsic part of the character and appearance of such areas, hence the Act prohibits any works to trees therein with a stem diameter measuring in excess of 75mm at a height of 1.5 metres from ground level.

Prior written notice must be given to a Local Authority of the intention to carry out works in a Conservation are; the notice should contain a sufficient level of detail to allow the Authority to identify the subject trees and a clear description of the proposed works to allow them to make an informed decision. Following receipt of a written notice the Authority have a statutory timeframe of 6 weeks to determine the notice, either

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018 raising no objection to the works or raising objection and making a TPO. Penalties are the same as for unauthorised works to trees protected by TPOs.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Under this legislation it is an offence to disturb or damage any existing or potential wildlife habitat within a tree. Prework surveys may be necessary to identify both bat roosts and nesting birds. Work scheduling should be carefully planned around bird nesting season and delayed if necessary. Should a bat roost be found during work all site work should cease and the Bat Trust be contacted. Natural England should also be contacted in relation to issues involving bats or Schedule 1 birds.

Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) and Method of Tree Inspection

This method of tree inspection was developed by C. Mattheck and H. Breloer and provides a standardised and industry recognised approach to tree risk assessment through the diagnosis of tree structural defects from visible external signs and evaluation of their significance through the application of biomechanical criteria, this being the study of the physical loading stresses associated with natural tree growth and compensatory growth strategies employed by trees in response to areas of reduced wood strength, due to such things as fungal degradation or physical damage.

VTA is based on the Axiom of Uniform Stress, which states that trees grow with such a configuration that all stresses on their surfaces are distributed as evenly as possible. If this state is disturbed, the tree will repair itself by producing locally thicker rings around the weakened area. These thickened areas are external visual symptoms of the defects that lie beneath and arboriculturists have learned to read the ‘body language’ of these dynamic, reparative structures to interpret their implications for tree safety, ultimately deciding if there is a discernible increased risk of failure compared to a similar tree which has no such defect.

The method proceeds in three stages: 1. Visual inspection for defect symptoms and vitality. If there is no sign of a problem the investigation is concluded. 2. If a defect is suspected on the basis of symptoms, is presence or absence must be confirmed by thorough examination. 3. If the defect is confirmed and appears to be a cause for concern, it must be measured and the strength of the remaining part of the tree evaluated.

Method of tree inspection Inspection of tree condition follows a logical progression assessing each main part of the tree in turn:  Overall crown (foliage) condition and density  Mechanical balance (weight distribution) of the crown  Root condition and condition of local soil around the tree  Presence of defects in the main stem  Presence of defects in the major branches

The assessment should start from afar where (site conditions permitting) the tree can be viewed as a whole structure and ideally compared with neighbouring trees. Trees of

Rother Valley Railway Arboricultural Appraisal May 2018 lower vitality can be more easily identified this way as the colour and density of their foliage will contrast with that of other potentially healthier trees nearby. The assessment proceeds to look closer at the tree, observing the condition of the soil or surfaces in the rooting area, then moving upward through the tree’s structure, observing the condition of the tree’s buttresses and lower stem, main stem(s), primary crown structure, and finally the condition of smaller branches.In accordance with stage 3 of VTA where defects are identified further investigation to quantify the extents of the defects may be appropriate.

List of References

British Standards Institute, BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations (BSI – 2012)

British Standards Institute, BS3998:2010 Tree Work -Recommendations (BSI – 2010)

D. Lonsdale, Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management (2013 edition - TSO)

C. Mattheck & H. Breloer, The Body Language of Trees (TSO - 1994)

R.G. Strouts & T. G. Winter, Diagnosis of Ill- Health in Trees (7th Impression, TSO - 2013)

F.W.M.R. Schwarze, J. Engels & C. Mattheck, Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees (2012 Edition - Springer)

F.W.M.R. Schwarze, Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees (ENSPEC - 2008)

Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)

Badger Survey

January 2018

Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018 Executive Summary

Trains first ran again on the Kent & East Sussex Railway in 1974 between Tenterden and Rolvenden and The Rother Valley Railway currently proposes to restore the missing rail link between Bodiam and Robertsbridge. As part of this extension a restoration of a section of the old railway line west of the B2244 road is being proposed.

CLM Ltd was commissioned in June 2017 to undertake a Badger survey of the proposed extension area.

The badger survey set out to:  survey the proposed extension site for the presence of badger activity, including the presence and distribution of any badger setts  prepare a report of the survey findings, and where necessary recommend required future surveys and the requirement for Natural England licensing of development works.

Discussion & Recommendations The survey found that several active badger setts, including at least one Main Sett, are present across the proposed extension area.

Development of the extension area will therefore need to be licensed by Natural England for works that impact on badgers. Due to the high level of badger activity found on the extension area significant mitigation land and the creation of artificial setts will need to be undertaken prior to any development works or vegetation clearance of the extension area. To obtain a licence from Natural England, a detailed mitigation strategy, with future monitoring, for the displacement and re-location of the resident badger population within the proposed extension area will be required.

As well as setts and latrine sites, there were numerous paths between badger setts (and several paths left the extension area and ran across adjoining habitats; showing that animals move both within and also outside of the proposed extension area.

ii Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018 6) Heavy plant and machinery should not work closer than 20 metres from a sett, landscaping work undertaken closer than 20m should be carried out with hand tools. 7) The use of heavy plant and machinery on any development site should cease before dusk, as badgers will be coming active above ground after this time.

It is recommended that proposals that encourage badgers and other wildlife to co-exist with the proposed development, such as the development of new hedgelines and herbaceous borders, are incorporated and displayed within the planned development designs.

iii Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018 Contents

Introduction 1

Survey methods 2

Survey results 2

Discussion and Recommendations 5

References 6

Legal status of Badgers

Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 including amendments under the Hunting Act 2004, which together make it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. Interference with a sett includes blocking any tunnels, obstructing access to or damaging setts in any way.

These Acts consolidate previous badger legislation by providing comprehensive protection for badgers and their setts, with a requirement that any authorised sett disturbance or destruction be carried out under licence.

Development works therefore have a legal obligation to consider badgers and their setts within development proposals.

A sett is defined as “Any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”. Work that disturbs badgers whilst occupying a sett is illegal without a licence, badgers may be disturbed by work near the sett even if there is no direct interference or damage to the sett.

For more detailed information please see current and Primary Legislation.

iv Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018 Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex

Badger survey Introduction

The Rother Valley Railway opened in 1900 and by 1905 it ran from to Robertsbridge to Tenterden Town station as a passenger service until being closed in 1954. Much of the line followed the courses of the River Rother and its tributary, the Newmill Channel, with 24 bridges and culverts.

Figure 1. Showing the proposed extension (outlined in red) westwards of the Rother Valley railway line in East Sussex.

CLM Ltd was commissioned in June 2017 to undertake a Badger survey of the proposed extension area.

The badger survey set out to:  survey the proposed extension site for the presence of badger activity, including the presence and distribution of any badger setts

1 Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018  prepare a report of the survey findings, and where necessary recommend required future surveys and the requirement for Natural England licencing of development works.

Survey methods The proposed extension area was visited on the 15th & 27th of June and the 14th December 2017 and surveyed for signs of badger activity. This included searching for setts, runs in vegetation, and latrine sites; as well as searching for hair collected from beneath fences and on vegetation on the development site.

Sett Status Badgers may use a number of setts during their yearly activity cycles; these setts can be classed as main, annex, subsidiary or outlier setts. The status of a sett is determined by the number of holes and level of activity recorded. Indicators of regular use can include the number of dung pits, the size of fresh spoil mounds, the volume of bedding outside hole entrances and the number of paths in the nearby vicinity.

Where setts are found, their status and level of activity is noted. Sett status being categorised as follows: · Main sett – usually continuously used with many signs of activity, a large number of holes and conspicuous spoil mounds · Annexe sett – usually located close to a main sett and connected to it by well used paths. Annexes may not be continuously occupied · Subsidiary sett – lesser used setts comprising a few holes and without the density of associated well used paths. Subsidiary setts are not continuously occupied · Outlier sett – one or two holes without many obvious paths. These are used sporadically.

Level of activity is described as: · Well used – holes clear of debris, trampled soil mounds and obviously active, with signs of activity such as presence of prints, dislodged guard hairs around the entrances · Partially used – some associated debris or plants at the entrances. Could be used with minimal excavation and usually with signs of activity within the vicinity, for example, badger pathways · Disused – partially or completely blocked entrances

Survey results Survey limitations The survey was largely limited to the proposed extension area, particularly on the western boundary, and categorising any on site sett status and local activity levels of badgers is therefore restricted (Harris et al. 1989; RSPCA, 1994).

Site details The proposed extension area is dominated by scrub and secondary woodland surrounded by mixed farmland

Survey findings Multiple active badger holes (Figures 2 & 3), including a Main Sett with several holes and subsidiary setts, were found to be located within the proposed extension area.

2 Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018

The approximate location of setts found on the extension area is shown in Figure 6. In addition to these, numerous paths within the proposed extension area and several latrine pits were also observed during site visits.

Discussion and Recommendations

The survey found that several active badger setts, including at least one Main Sett, are present across the proposed extension area.

Development of the extension area will therefore need to be licenced by Natural England for works that impact on badgers. Due to the high level of badger activity found on the extension area significant mitigation land and the creation of artificial setts will need to be undertaken prior to any development works or vegetation clearance of the extension area. To obtain a licence from Natural England, a detailed mitigation strategy, with future monitoring, for the displacement and re-location of the resident badger population within the proposed extension area will be required.

As well as setts and latrine sites, there were numerous paths between badger setts (Figure 6) and several paths left the extension area and ran across adjoining habitats; showing that animals move both within and also outside of the proposed extension area.

As general good practice within the detailed mitigation strategy that will be required, it is recommended that a number of procedures to protect badgers should be enacted, these include: 1) Excavations over 0.5m in depth should be covered at the end of each working day or escape ramps fitted to allow badgers to escape should they become trapped. 2) Any open pipes should be covered to prevent badgers becoming trapped 3) Any excavations or pipes should be checked for badgers at the beginning of each working day 4) Any chemicals or oils should be stored off the ground 5) Security lighting should be angled towards the development site only and other areas should not be lit unless strictly necessary. 6) Heavy plant and machinery should not work closer than 20 metres from a sett, landscaping work undertaken closer than 20m should be carried out with hand tools. 7) The use of heavy plant and machinery on any development site should cease before dusk, as badgers will be coming active above ground after this time.

5 Rother Valley Railway Badger Survey January 2018 References

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. 1989. Surveying badgers. Occasional publication of the Mammal Society No 9. Mammal Society, London.

RSPCA. 1994. Problems with badgers? RSPCA, Wildlife Department, Causeway, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1HG.

Woods, M. 2010. The Badger. 2nd Edition. Mammal Society, 3 The Carronades, New Road, Southampton SO14 0AA.

6 Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)

Bat survey

January 2018

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Executive Summary

CLM Ltd was commissioned to undertake a bat survey of the site in 2017.

The objectives of this survey were to:  Investigate the proposed railway extension area for bat activity and bat roosts  Prepare a report outlining the survey results and where appropriate outline potential mitigation measures and/or further work that may be required prior to development.

Results Three species of bat, namely Common pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats, were recorded as foraging and/or commuting around the woodland/scrub borders of the proposed extension area.

A maternity roost for Soprano Pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats was located at the very eastern end of the proposed extension area, within a large Ash tree that has a number of exit and entry places.

Recommendations & Conclusions The Ash tree immediately adjacent to the existing carpark is very likely a maternity roost for Soprano and Daubenton’s bats and this roost will be significant at least at a local level. Any proposed works to this tree or any activity within development proposals that may impact on this tree, such as removal of nearby trees, ground works, additional lighting or additional noise, will need to be undertaken under a Development Licence from Natural England.

Bats were found to be commuting and foraging around the outside of the proposed railway extension area and bat activity was largely associated with the established woodland/scrub habitat. To maintain bat usage, it is important that commuting and foraging activity is not interrupted by any new significant breaks in this habitat, particularly within the outer woodland/scrub line.

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

2009; Bat Conservation Trust, 2009). Any proposed outside lighting in development plans should be of low intensity type with lighting angled downwards. Lighting should not be allowed to spill onto any existing or planned hedgeline areas as that would significantly disrupt bat activity (Stone et al., 2009).

Post development the site and particularly the known Ash tree bat roost will need to be monitored to assess the success of mitigation measures proposed within a mitigation strategy that is required for this site in respect to bats and any other Protected Species that have been identified in other surveys.

iii

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Contents

Introduction 1

Survey methods 2

Constraints to survey methods 3

Results 3

Recommendations & Conclusions 5

References 6

Legal status of Bats in the UK In England and Wales, the relevant legislation is the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000; the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006); and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010). Within this legislation all bats are listed as being 'European Protected Species’. Under legislation it is an offence for any person to:  Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat.  Possess or control a live or dead bat, any part of a bat, or anything derived from a bat.  Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection.  Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection.  Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead bat, any part of a bat, or anything derived from a bat. It is also an offence to publish, or cause to be published, any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that they buy or sell, or intend to buy or sell, any live or dead bat, part of a bat or anything derived from a bat. Sale includes hire, barter and exchange.  Set and use articles capable of catching, injuring or killing a bat (for example a trap or poison), or knowingly cause or permit such an action. This includes sticky traps intended for animals other than bats.

Please see the Primary Legislation for more details.

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex

Bat survey Introduction

Figure 1. Showing the proposed extension (outlined in red) westwards of the Rother Valley railway line in East Sussex.

CLM Ltd was commissioned to undertake a bat survey of the site in 2017.

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Survey methods Field survey Emergence/activity survey methods followed current bat survey guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust. 2016). The site was divided into 6 survey stations (Figure 2) and during activity surveys surveyors walked slowly and recorded between stations and undertook static recordings at stations for approximately 3 minutes.

Figure 2. Shows the approximate location of 6 bat survey stations (A to F) used in this survey.

During earlier visits to the proposed railway extension area on survey visits for other Protected Species, a High Bat Roost Potential ash tree (Figure 3) was identified adjacent to the carpark area (at Station A). At least one surveyor was stationed at this tree during the critical periods of emergence and return surveys.

Bat detectors, namely Anabat SD and Anabat models, were used. The experienced bat workers who undertook surveys were Jon Bramley, Oliver Parfitt and Jason Armstrong during survey visits under Survey Licence 2015-10844-CLS-CLS. Bat

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

identification was made in the field and later confirmed by analysis of recordings with appropriate software (e.g. Analook).

The site was surveyed for bat activity on three occasions; emergence surveys were carried out on the 1st of July and the 17th of August and a return survey carried out on the 26th of September 2017.

Constraints to survey methods There were no significant limitations to the survey. Weather conditions during the field survey periods were good. All activity surveys were carried out in air temperatures above the critical temperature of 100C (BCT, 2016).

Results Site details The proposed extension area is dominated by scrub and secondary woodland surrounded by mixed farmland with nature hedgelines.

Figure 3. Showing the High Bat Roost Potential Ash tree that is located next to the existing carpark within the proposed railway extension area.

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Activity surveys Thirty-two bats emerged from the Ash tree, that had been identified as having High Bat Roost potential, in the July emergence survey. During the emergence period bat calls were dominated by social calls but at least Soprano Pipistrelle (55 pip) and Daubenton’s bats were identified as using this roost. No bats were seen entering or leaving this roost on subsequent surveys and therefore considering the lifecycle of bats and the number of bats seen the Ash tree in the carpark area probably provides a maternity site for at least two bat species.

Activity surveys found that three species of bat, namely Common pipistrelle (45 pip), Soprano Pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bats foraged and commuted around the outside of the whole railway extension area (See below).

Site: Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex Date: 1st July 2017 Survey type: Dusk emergence Survey start/stop times: 21.03/23.00 Wind: Light Rain: Dry Air temperature: Start 180C Time BST Species Activity and Area 21.38-22.12 S. pip & At least 32 bats seen to emerge from the main stem Daubenton’s and side branch areas of the Ash tree at Station A in the carpark. Numerous social calls during this time. 22.22 Myotis Bat recorded between survey Stations A & B. 22.27-22.28 Daubenton’s Recorded commuting passes at Station B. 22.37-22.41 C. pip Several passes and foraging around Station D. 22.57 C. pip Recorded just south of Station A 22.59 S.Pip & Foraging near to Station A. Daubenton’s

Site: Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex Date: 17th August 2017 Survey type: Dusk emergence Survey start/stop times: 20.01/21.45 Wind: Light/fresh Rain: Dry Air temperature: Start 190C Time BST Species Activity and Area 20.26 S. pip Commuting pass near Station A. 21.06 S.pip Commuting pass near Station F. 21.20 S.Pip Commuting pass near Station E 21.22 Pip Passes between Stations E and D 21.22-21.24 C. pip Passes in field just north of development area, 21.29 C. pip Commuting pass near Station D. 21.39 C. pip Commuting pass near Station B.

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

Site: Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex Date: 26th September 2017 Survey type: Dawn return Survey start/stop times: 05.07/07.01 Wind: None Rain: Dry Air temperature: Start 140C Time BST Species Activity and Area 05.13 Daubenton’s Brief commuting pass near Station A 05.18 S.pip Commuting pass between Stations A and B 06.16 Bat Distant pass near Station A. 06.26 S.Pip Brief pass near Station D

Recommendations & Conclusions

The Ash tree immediately adjacent to the existing carpark is very likely a maternity roost for Soprano and Daubenton’s bats and this roost will be significant at least at a local level. Any proposed works to this tree or any activity within development proposals that may impact on this tree, such as removal of nearby trees, ground works, additional lighting or additional noise, will need to be undertaken under a Development Licence from Natural England.

The whole site development is not currently lit and the use of bright security type lighting should be avoided within any development proposals and during development works, as this lighting type is known to negatively impact bat activity (Stone et al., 2009; Bat Conservation Trust, 2009). Any proposed outside lighting in development plans should be of low intensity type with lighting angled downwards. Lighting should not be allowed to spill onto any existing or planned hedgeline areas as that would significantly disrupt bat activity (Stone et al., 2009).

Rother Valley Railway Bat Survey January 2018

References

Bat Conservation Trust 2009. Bats and Lighting. Version 3 May 2009. http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/bats_and_lighting_in_the_uk__final_version_versio n_3_may_09.pdf

Bat Conservation Trust. 2016. Bat Surveys. Good Practice Guidelines. 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, 5th floor, Quadrant House, 250 Kennington Lane, London SE11 5RD. Stone, E.L., Jones, G., and Harris, S. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1-5. .

Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)

Dormouse Survey

January 2018

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Executive Summary

Introduction The Rother Valley Railway opened in 1900 and by 1905 it ran from to Robertsbridge to Tenterden Town station as a passenger service until being closed in 1954. Much of the line followed the courses of the River Rother and its tributary, the Newmill Channel, with 24 bridges and culverts. Trains first ran again on the Kent & East Sussex Railway in 1974 between Tenterden and Rolvenden and The Rother Valley Railway currently proposes to restore the missing rail link between Bodiam and Robertsbridge. As part of this extension a restoration of a section of the old railway line west of the B2244 road is being proposed.

The objectives of this survey were to:  Investigate hedges and scrub on the site for hazel dormice  Prepare a report of the survey results and outline any further survey work or mitigation measures that may be required for this species.

Results Dormice were seen on the proposed railway extension area on two survey visits and nests were found on all visits. The maximum number of nests seen on any single visit was six.

Conclusions & Recommendations The tube survey results indicate that at least a Moderate hazel dormouse population currently occurs on the proposed railway extension area.

Any removal of habitat on the proposed extension area will therefore need to be licensed by Natural England.

The resident dormouse population will need to be maintained and supported within any development proposals and habitat favourable to this species, such as scrub, hedge and woodland, maintained where possible and compensatory habitat created nearby. These works will need to be detailed within a mitigation strategy that is accepted by Natural England prior to development works being undertaken.

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Contents

Introduction 1

Survey methods 2

Constraints to survey methods 2

Results 3

Conclusions & Recommendations 4

References 4

Legal Protection for the Hazel Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) in England

The dormouse is protected under Schedule 5 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation makes it an offence to intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture a dormouse or destroy a dormouse breeding or resting site.

Dormice are also protected against cruelty under the Protection of Mammals Act 1996.

The dormouse is a Priority Species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Please see the Primary Legislation for a full understanding of the current legal protection of dormice.

iii

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Rother Valley Railway, Robertsbridge, East Sussex

Hazel Dormouse survey Introduction The Rother Valley Railway opened in 1900 and by 1905 it ran from to Robertsbridge to Tenterden Town station as a passenger service until being closed in 1954. Much of the line followed the courses of the River Rother and its tributary, the Newmill Channel, with 24 bridges and culverts. Trains first ran again on the Kent & East Sussex Railway in 1974 between Tenterden and Rolvenden and The Rother Valley Railway currently proposes to restore the missing rail link between Bodiam and Robertsbridge. As part of this extension a restoration of a section of the old railway line west of the B2244 road is being proposed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Showing the proposed extension (outlined in red) westwards of the Rother Valley railway line in East Sussex.

CLM Ltd was commissioned in June 2017 to undertake a Hazel Dormouse survey of the proposed extension area.

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Survey methods

The dormouse is a secretive, largely nocturnal, mammal generally associated with woodland, coppice and hedgerows; though a wider range of habitats, including heathland, rough grassland and reedbed may hold this species (Eden, 2009).

Survey methods for this report followed methods as outlined by Bright et al. (2006) & Chanin & Gubert (2011) and involved the use of Mammal Society type nesting tubes set out over a number of months. This method requires tubes to be set out across sufficient time so that an ‘index of probability of finding dormice’ is ideally above 20 when using 50 tubes. Each month from April to November having a weighted score from 1 to 7 (Table 1), which are tallied together, in consideration of the number of tubes used to provide the total score.

Table 1. Showing Index of Probability Scores per month (per 50 tubes)

Index of probability Month April 1 May 4 June 2 July 2 August 5 September 7 October 2 November 2

Fifty tubes were set out on the proposed extension area in June (Figure 2) and surveyed until mid-December 2017; overall giving an index of probability score of finding dormice on the site of approximately 20.

The survey was undertaken by Jonathan Bramley and Jason Armstrong (both Dormouse Survey Licence holders).

Constraints to survey methods

At the time of the last survey session in December many of the survey tubes had been taken down or destroyed. However, given the time of year that this happened this is not considered to have significantly impacted on survey results.

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Figure 2. Showing the approximate location on the proposed railway extension area of the 50 hazel dormouse tubes used in this survey.

Results Field survey Site details The proposed extension area is dominated by scrub and secondary woodland surrounded by mixed farmland with established hedgelines.

Dormouse signs recorded Dormice were seen on the extension area on two survey visits and nests were found on all visits. The maximum number of nests seen on any single visit was six (Table 2).

Table 2. Displaying the results from site visits carried out on the proposed railway extension area from June to mid-December 2017. Date GPS all TQ Nest and/or animals 17/08/17 7696724175 Dormouse nest 7702724258 Dormouse nest and one adult dormouse seen. 26/09/17 7702724258 Dormouse nest (found on 17/08/17) 7694924210 Dormouse nest 7673624084 Dormouse nest and one dormouse 7696424177 Dormouse nest and one dormouse 14/12/17 7703124256 Dormouse nest 7698624227 Dormouse nest 7696324219 Dormouse nest 7679924120 Dormouse nest 7678724109 Dormouse nest 7677124099 Dormouse nest

Rother Valley Railway Dormouse Survey January 2018

Conclusions & Recommendations

The tube survey results indicate that at least a Moderate hazel dormouse population currently occurs on the proposed railway extension area.

Any removal of habitat on the proposed extension area will therefore need to be licensed by Natural England.

References

Bright, P. Morris, P. and Mitchell-Jones, T. 2006. The dormouse conservation handbook. 2nd Edition. English Nature, External Relations Team, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA.

Chanin, P. and Gubert, L. 2011. Surveying hazel dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) with tubes and boxes: a comparison. Mammal Notes. Summer 2011. Pages 1-6.

Eden, S. 2009. Living with Dormice. Papadakis, Kimber Winterbourne, Berkshire RG20 8AN.

Patmore, J.M. and Wheeler, B.R. 1999. Conserving dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius populations in the Weald. English Nature Research Report No 362.

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)

Primary Great Crested Newt Survey

January 2018

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018 Executive Summary

Introduction

CLM Ltd was commissioned in June 2017 to undertake a primary Great Crested Newt (GCN) survey of nearby ponds. The objectives of this survey were to:  Investigate waterbodies on or near to the development site for the presence of Great Crested Newt  Prepare a report of the survey results and outline any future works that may be required if proposed developments were to be enacted.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The findings of the HSI scoring would appear to indicate that the two ponds surveyed for this report do have the potential to hold Great Crested Newt. However, the eDNA analysis for both ponds was negative and this suggests that Great Crested Newts are not currently using either ponds as wetland habitat and further GCN surveys are not considered to be needed at this time.

If any water drainage is to be incorporated into railway development plans, such as the incorporation of gulley pots, these plans need to use measures, such as using wildlife friendly gulley pot covers (e.g. Perth & Kinross Ranger Service, 2014), of recognised design that are known to minimise the negative impacts of drainage on wildlife; as these impacts can be very significant, especially for Great Crested Newt, other amphibians and reptiles

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Contents

Introduction 1

Survey methods 2

Results 5

Conclusions & Recommendations 6

References 7

Appendix 1 HSI Scores for Ponds 1 & 2 8

Appendix 2 Great Crested Newt eDNA Results 9

iii

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018 Legal protection for great crested newt and other amphibians in Britain

Fully protected species (include) Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) These species are protected under all elements of Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are also protected under parts 1 and 2 of Regulation 39 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation taken together prohibits the following on any of these species:  Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly, injuring, killing and capturing  Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturbing  Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly taking or destroying eggs  Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly destroying a breeding site or resting place or damaging or obstructing a resting place used for shelter or protection  Keeping, transporting, selling or exchanging; offering for sale or advertising. Consequently, not only are the animals themselves protected, but so is their habitat, and activities that damage or impede the use of this habitat are prohibited.

Partially protected species Protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act against sale only  Smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris prev. Triturus vulgaris)  Palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus prev. Triturus helveticus)  Common frog (Rana temporaria)  Common toad (Bufo bufo)

Please see the Primary Legislation for a fuller account of this protection.

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Introduction

B2244

Figure 1. Showing the proposed extension (outlined in red) westwards of the Rother Valley railway line in East Sussex. The B2244 road is labelled.

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Survey methods

Due to the commissioning date of the survey the standard Great Crested Newt survey approach of 6 visits to each pond lying within 500 metres of a site, using a variety of survey techniques such as torching, trapping and netting, during the period late February to June, with the critical period being from mid-April to mid-May (Griffiths & Inns. 1998; English Nature, 2001) was not possible.

However, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) scores have been developed to calculate habitat quality and likelihood of great crested newt presence in ponds (Oldham et al., 2000). These scores give an indication of the suitability of ponds for Great Crested Newt and are derived from the geometric mean of ten key pond habitat features, such as pond size (Oldham et al., 2000). Ponds with scores below 0.5 are considered to have Poor suitability, 0.5-0.59 are Below Average, 0.6-0.69 are Average, 0.7-.79 are Good and ponds scoring above 0.8 are considered to have Excellent suitability (Oldham et al., 2000) and HSI scoring (Appendix 1) was undertaken in the current survey on two ponds found relatively close and south of the old railway line (Figures 2, 3 and 4). Areas north, west and to some extent east are separated from the old railway line by the River Rother, which probably acts as a barrier to GCN movement.

Figure 2. Showing the approximate location of two ponds found south of the old railway line and embankment.

In addition, in recent years there has been the development of a technique of waterway surveying using environmental DNA analysis. In this survey technique (Biggs, et al., 2014) water samples are taken and analysed for the presence, in this case, of Great Crested Newt, DNA, which indicates that individuals of this species are or have recently occupied that waterbody. This technique is considered valid until late June

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/great-crested-newts-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development- projects and water samples were taken from both ponds in mid-June 2017 and analysed by NatureMetrics Ltd (Appendix 2).

The water collection work was undertaken by Jonathan Bramley (GCN licence holder) and Jason Armstrong (GCN licence holder) on the 15th of June 2017.

Constraints to survey methods

As the survey for Great Crested Newt was undertaken outside of the mid-April to mid-May period the full range of survey techniques could not be undertaken. However, the eDNA results are valid and were taken within the recognised survey window for this species.

Figure 3. Showing water samples being collected from Pond 1. At the time of survey this pond was very shallow and probably dries up each year by mid-summer.

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Figure 4. Showing the shaded western part of Pond 2. This pond may have been stocked with fish.

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Results

HSI scores HSI scores of the two found ponds found were: a) Pond 1 is a shallow pond measuring some 5m x 5m. It has dense riparian herbaceous vegetation. HSI score of 0.60 (Appendix 1), which indicates an Average likelihood that this pond can hold Great Crested Newts. b) Pond 2 is a large ornamental pond, some 40 x 40m, with a good coverage of aquatic plants. It has been created next to a new business development. HSI score of 0.77 (Appendix 1), which indicates a Good likelihood that this pond can hold Great Crested Newts. eDNA testing No Great Crested Newt DNA was detected in Ponds 1 or 2 (Appendix 2).

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Conclusions & Recommendations

Smooth newt

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

References

Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F. 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Defra Project WC1067. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford

Bullock, D.J., Oldham, R. and Corbett, K. 1998. Chapter 6. Habitats and their management. In: Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY.

CIRIA. 2007. The SUDS manual (C697). CIRIA, Classic House, 174 - 180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP.

English Nature. 2001. Great Crested Newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1JF.

Griffiths, R.A. and Inns, H. 1998. Chapter 1. Surveying. In: Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY.

Langton, T., Beckett, C. and Foster, J. 2001. Great Crested Newt. Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Mansion House, Halesworth, Suffolk IP19 8AY.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. and Jeffcote, M. 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal. 10, 143-155.

Perth & Kinross Ranger Service. 2014. Final Report. Amphibians in Drains Project. Perth and Kinross Ranger Service and Tayside Biodiversity Partnership. Pullar House, Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Appendix 1 HSI Scores for Ponds 1 & 2

Pond SI 1 SI 2 SI 3 SI 4 SI 5 SI 6 SI 7 SI 8 SI 9 SI 10 HSI GCN Prediction 1 1 0.1 0.1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.7 0.60 Average 2 1 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.67 0.33 0.8 0.67 0.9 0.77 Good

Rother Valley Railway Primary Great Crested Newt Survey January 2018

Appendix 2 Great Crested Newt eDNA Results

Reptile Survey Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction

Rd)

October 2017

Prepared By Reviewed By

Alex Macdonald Kevin Jay

MCIEEM MCIEEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

An earlier Ecological Appraisal Survey (CLM June 2017) of the site known as Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd) indicated that reptiles were potentially present. Consequently, to ascertain the presence and size of any resident reptile population CLM Ltd was contracted to undertake a reptile survey of this site during the summer of 2017.

The objectives of this reptile survey were to:

 Investigate a wider site area for the presence of reptiles  Prepare a report highlighting the survey results and recommend general mitigation measures

Results and Recommendations

The wider site holds a ‘low’ population size of common lizard Lacerta vivipara and grass snake Natrix helvetica. These are likely to be distributed throughout but, due to the inherently shaded nature of the northern aspect of this site, were only found under tiles on the sunnier southern side.

Population studies undertaken have estimated that one hectare of good quality habitat may support up to 600–2100 reptiles; the proposed development site may well, therefore, hold over a hundred individuals and a mitigation strategy will be required before this site could be developed. Legal protection for reptiles in Britain

The smooth snake and sand lizard are fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. The adder, grass snake, common lizard and slow-worm are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act against killing, injuring and sale etc

Threats to reptile populations include loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation.

For more detailed information please see current and Primary Legislation.

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this reptile survey were to:

 Investigate a wider site area for the presence of reptiles  Prepare a report highlighting the survey results and recommend general mitigation measures

Figure 1. Shows the location of the site (TQ 741 240)

SURVEY METHODS

To ascertain whether reptiles are present on a site it is rarely possible to employ a single survey method (Foster & Gent, 1996; Griffiths & Inns, 1998). Generally a number of survey techniques are undertaken, each appropriate to the time of year, to particular site circumstances and on the detail required concerning size and nature of populations.

The vast majority of the site consists of broadleaved semi natural woodland and tall ruderal habitat which, although it offered suitable habitat for reptiles, did not in itself support sufficient suitable areas for surveying. As a consequence it was decided to locate the majority of the tiles on the edge of tall ruderal habitat directly adjacent to the site which would give a representation of the reptiles utilising the wider site.

During this current survey three standard survey techniques were employed in the search for reptiles.

1. Walkover survey: suitable basking spots for reptiles were examined on every site visit 2. In situ refuge sites, such as corrugated metal roof sheets, were examined during visits 3. In addition to the in situ refugia, 31 artificial cover objects, made from roofing felt, were placed in areas of key habitat on the 15th June 2017 and examined on subsequent visits.

It is standard practice to undertake multiple visits to a site in the search for reptiles (Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group et al., 2003) as populations can be cryptic and may only appear during certain conditions (HGBI, 2000). For this reason 20 visits to the site were carried out from late June to late September, in weather conditions that were considered good for surveying.

Figure 2. Location of artificial refugia

RESULTS

Site details The site is largely made up of broadleaved secondary woodland although this could potentially be described as dense scrub in some areas. In places, and particularly on the boundary, was tall ruderal habitat which in turn bordered grassland on the northern boundary and a rough grass margin adjacent to an arable field on the southern boundary which lay outside the site itself.

Reptiles recorded The survey found that common lizard and grass snake were found in areas of suitable habitat (Figures 2 and 3) on the southern side of the site although only in limited numbers. It should be noted that the grass margins and some tall ruderal habitat on the south side had been flailed as part of the annual management programme of this agricultural field when the site was visited on the 18/9/17 with only 13 mats remaining intact.

The maximum individual counts on single visits for both species was 2. As adult numbers are generally used to estimate population sizes of reptiles on a site these numbers indicate a Low population of common lizard and a Low population of grass snake (HGB1, 2000).

Table 1 Displaying a summary of survey results Total Start Stop Cloud Total Date Temp Wind Grass time time cover Common snake lizards 30/06/2017 9.30 10.2 18 50% Still 0 0 07/07/2017 2.50 3.18 27 5% Light breeze 0 0 17/07/2017 8.30 8.55 18 None Light breeze 0 0 07/08/2017 17.00 17.25 19 80% Light breeze 2 0 08/08/2017 8.20 8.45 13 100% None 1 0 11/08/2017 8.30 8.55 16 10% None 0 0 14/08/2017 8.20 8.45 16 20% None 0 0 17/08/2017 17.00 17.25 20 90% Strong breeze 0 0 18/08/2017 8.55 9.20 17 100% light breeze 0 1 24/08/2017 8.35 9.00 15 95% None 0 2 25/08/2017 16.25 16.50 23 0% None 0 0 31/08/2017 8.50 9.20 12 0% None 0 0 01/09/2017 16.30 17.00 19 50% None 0 1 07/09/2017 8.35 9.00 12 30% None 0 1 07/09/2017 16.50 17.15 18 80% Strong breeze 0 0 13/09/2017 16.20 16.45 17 80% Strong breeze 18mph 0 0 18/09/2017 16.00 16.25 12 100% None 0 0 19/09/2017 9.20 9.45 11 10% None 0 0 19/09/2017 17 17.25 15 5 None 0 1 26/09/2017 16.50 17.35 18 100% None 0 0

Figure 2. Red points showing where common lizard were recorded

Figure 3. Red points showing where grass snake were recorded

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Two species of reptile, namely common lizard and grass snake, were recorded as occurring on the site in Low population sizes.

Although the survey particularly shows these species to be utilising south facing habitats it is thought that they will, at other times, be widespread across the whole site.

Population studies undertaken have estimated that one hectare of good quality habitat may support 600–2100 reptiles; the proposed development site may well, therefore, hold over a hundred individual reptiles and a mitigation strategy will be required before this site can be developed.

This strategy will need to:

1) Ensure that either suitable habitat for reptile species, of equal or greater size and/or quality to that found currently on this site, is provided for within the development proposals or that a nearby receptor site of similar size to the plot proposed for development is provided. Any receptor site will need to be assessed for the presence of existing reptile populations and then, if considered suitable, enhanced in order to provide good quality reptile habitat prior to any translocation operations. Any requirement for a receptor site will also need an associated capture and translocation programme as well as monitoring for up to 5 years.

2) Ensure that reptiles are protected prior to, during and after development works.

3) Ensure that reptile habitat remains connected so that animals can move around and to and from the site along reptile friendly corridor habitats.

REFERENCES

Foster, J. and Gent T. (eds.) 1996. Reptile survey methods: proceedings of a seminar held on the 7th of November at the Zoological Society of London’s meeting rooms, Regent’s Park, London. English Nature Science Report No 27. English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1JF.

Griffiths, R.A. and Inns, H. 1998. Chapter 1. Surveying. In: Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY.

Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland. 2000. Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: maintaining best practice and lawful standards. Froglife, Triton House, Bramfield, Halesworth, Suffolk IP19 9AE. Also referred to as Froglife (1999) by some authors.

Kent Reptile & Amphibian Group, Kent Wildlife Trust and English Nature. 2003. Protected Reptiles and Built Development. Available from Kent Wildlife Trust, Tyland Barn, Sandling, Maidstone, Kent ME14 3BD.

CLM June 2017 Ecological Appraisal Rother Valley Railway (Track Reinstatement between Austins Bridge and Junction Rd)