Des

Date: December 2014

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Prepared by CSa Environmental Planning

On behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

( (88 (8 Report No: CSa/1961/02

Date: December 2014

Land at Glenmore Farm,

Westbury, Wiltshire

Ecological Impact

Assessment Report

Prepared by CSa Environmental Planning

On behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd.

Date Prepared by Authorised by File Ref

First Draft 08.08.14 CC/KK KL 1961/02 Second Draft 15.08.14 CC/KK CC 1961/02a Third Issue 15.08.14 CC/KK CC 1961/02b Fourth Issue 03.10.14 CC/KK CC 1961/02c Fifth Issue 17.12.14 CC/KK CC 1961/02d Report No: CSa/1961/02 Sixth Issue 10.06.15 KK CC 1961/02e

CONTENTS Page

1.0 Introduction 2

2.0 Legislation and Planning Policy 3 Legislation 3 Biodiversity and Priority Species 3 National Planning Policy 4 Local Planning Policy 4

3.0 Methodology 8 Desktop Biological Records Search 8 Site Survey 8 Bat Surveys 9 Badger Survey 12 Breeding Bird Survey 13 Great Crested Newt Survey 14 Evaluation and Assessment 15

4.0 Results and Evaluation 17 Site Location 17 Designated Sites 17 General Site Description 18 Habitats and Flora 19 Fauna 22 Evaluation of Ecological Features 32

5.0 Discussion and Impact Assessment 36 Potential Impacts, Avoidance and Mitigation Measures 36 General Opportunities for Avoidance, Mitigation and Enhancement 46

6.0 Summary and Conclusions 48

Appendices

Appendix A: MAGIC Database Site Check Report and Plan Appendix B Habitats Plan (CSa/1961/100) Appendix C: Bat Survey Data and Plans Appendix D: Breeding Bird Survey Results Appendix E: Great Crested Newt Survey Data and Plans

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report has been prepared by CSa Environmental Planning on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd. It sets out the findings of detailed ecological surveys undertaken between 2012 and 2014 at Glenmore Farm, Westbury in Wiltshire and follows on from an Ecological Appraisal report (CSa/1961/01) produced in 2012. This report has been commissioned to inform an outline planning application for residential development (up to 145 dwellings, with public open spaces (POS), engineering works and associated infrastructure) and to assess the ecological impacts of this scheme.

1.2 This Ecological Impact Assessment Report aims to:

• undertake a desktop search for relevant biological records and assess their significance; • review the Site in relation to its wider ecological context; • describe and map the habitats present at the Site; • present the findings of detailed species-specific surveys; • identify the potential for any potential impacts to protected species and habitats; • describe impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures to be implemented at the Site; and • assess potential ecological impacts of the proposed development.

1.3 This report presents the ecological assessment information in a standard format accepted by ecological consultees across the country, adopting various best-practice procedures and methodologies.

1.4 The Site consists of semi-improved grassland pasture sub-divided into paddocks, bordered by hedgerows. The paddocks are horse-grazed on a rotational basis, with a summer hay cut taken form the northern field and some parts of the southern fields of the Site in July 2014. A farmhouse, associated garden, farm buildings, stables, ménage enclosure and hard-standing are present within the southern part of the site.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 2

2.0 LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

Legislation

2.1 There are several pieces of legislation relating to wildlife and biodiversity. Those of particular relevance to ecology and development are the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), which enacts the Habitats and Birds Directives1 into UK law, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. In addition, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 sets the requirement for planning authorities to consider impacts on “ species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity” when determining planning applications. This is described under ‘Biodiversity and Priority Species’ below. These pieces of legislation and the species and habitats they afford protection to have been considered, as appropriate to the development Site, in the production of this report.

2.2 Natural England Standing Advice 2 regarding protected species aims to support Local Authorities and forms a material consideration in determining applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation (except where applications require EIA or may affect a Natura 2000 site).

Biodiversity and Priority Species

2.3 The NERC Act 2006 Section 40(1) 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 ”. This legislation makes it clear that planning authorities should consider impacts to biodiversity when determining planning applications, with particular regard to the Section 41 list of 56 habitats and 943 species of principal importance, even where they are not covered by other legislation. The S41 list was taken forward for action under the UK BAP (first published in 1994). The UK BAP has now been superseded by the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy 3 (published August 2011), which continues to prioritise the S41 list, setting national targets for the period to 2020, and the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework 4 (published July 2012), which shows how these contribute to targets at the European level. Whilst BAP are therefore no longer formally recognised these can still be of use in meeting targets for nature conservation. Many of the tools and resources originally

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds, respectively. 2 www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtransportlocalgov/spatialplanning/standingadvice/default.aspx 3 Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services . Defra, London 4 JNCC and Defra (2012) UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group). July 2012.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 3

developed for the BAP remain in use, such as background information BAP priority species and habitats, which still form the basis of work at national level.

National Planning Policy

2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 5 (NPPF) sets out the government planning policies for England and how they should be applied. With regards to ecology and biodiversity, Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, paragraph 109, states that the planning system and planning policies should:

• minimise impacts on, and provide net gains in, biodiversity where possible, “contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures ”; and • recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services.

2.5 Under these aims, paragraph 117 states the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape scale, linked to national and local targets. Paragraph 118 sets out the principles that local planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications:

• refuse planning permission if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for; • encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments; • permission should not normally be permitted where an adverse effect on a nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is likely, either individually or in combination with other developments; and • refuse planning permission if development will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland and the aged or veteran trees, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

Local Planning Policy

2.6 Wiltshire County Council has inherited the Local Plans produced by the former District Authorities, including West Wiltshire District Council which was responsible for planning in the Westbury area. The Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the current planning policies in force, with those relating to nature conservation summarised in Table 1, below.

5 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 4

Table 1. Summary of Relevant Local Planning Policy and Guidance. Planning Policy Ref Relevant Policy / Guidance Details

Wiltshire Pre-submission Core Strategy (adopted Jan 2015) Within the Westbury Area Strategy is states that “development in the vicinity of Salisbury Plain must protect the habitats, species and processes which maintain the integrity of the Special Area of Conservation, while development (within 15km of the SPA) which increases recreational Westbury Area Strategy pressure upon the Special Protection Area will not be permitted unless proportional [developer] 6 contributions are made to offset impacts through the Wessex Stone Curlew Project”. Protection: Development proposals much demonstrate how they protect features of nature conservation and geological value as part of the design rational [sic]. There is an expectation that such features shall be retained, buffered and managed favourably in order to maintain their ecological value, connectivity and functionality in the long-term. Where is has been demonstrated that such features cannot be retained, removal or damage shall only be acceptable in circumstances where the anticipated ecological impacts have been mitigated as far as possible and appropriate compensatory measures can be secured to ensure no net loss of the local biodiversity resource, and secure the integrity of local ecological networks and provision of ecosystem services.

All development proposals shall incorporate appropriate measures to avoid and reduce disturbance of sensitive wildlife species and habitats throughout the lifetime of the development. Core Policy 50: Biodiversity and Any development potentially affecting a Natura 2000 site must provide avoidance measures. Geodiversity Biodiversity enhancement All development should seek opportunities to enhance biodiversity. Major development in particular must include measures to deliver biodiversity gains through opportunities to restore, enhance and create valuable habitats, ecological networks and ecosystem services. Such enhancement measures will contribute to the objectives and targets of the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

Local sites: Sustainable development will avoid direct and indirect impacts upon local sites through sensitive location and layout, and by maintaining sufficient buffers and ecological connectivity with the wider environment. Damage or disturbance to local sites will generally be unacceptable, other than in exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that such impacts: i. cannot reasonably be avoided

6 Insertion of the word ‘developer’ was a suggested change to the Core Strategy to add clarity. The change was identified within the Schedule of Proposed Changes to Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre- Submission Document and accepted in June 2012.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 5

ii. are reduced as far as possible iii. are outweighed by other planning considerations in the public interest and iv. where appropriate compensation measures can be secured through planning obligations or agreements. Development proposals affecting local sites must contribute to their favourable management in the long-term. In order to avoid and reduce potential environmental effects on the River Avon SAC, development will need to incorporate measures during construction and operation to avoid and prevent pollution and mitigate potential disturbance effect. Where additional sewage discharges to a Sewage Treatment Works (STW) cannot be accommodated without measures to offset phosphate Core Policy 69: loading, development will be required to undertake proportionate mitigation measures to demonstrate that the proposals would have no likely Protection of the River significant effects upon the SAC. Avon SAC Financial contributions would need to be made to offset additional nutrient outputs. “An important principle is that developers are only required to offset the phosphorous arising from proposed new development and contributions would not be used to reduce historic pollution. Where development would discharge to an existing environmental permit which the EA has confirmed as being Habitats Regulations compliant without the need for phosphate offsetting, no contribution or mitigation measures would be necessary.”

Bat Special Areas of Conservation: Planning Guidance for Wiltshire (Natural England, Wiltshire Council and BANES Council, March 2013)

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC, Chilmark Quarries SAC and Mottisfont SAC are internationally designated sites supporting important bat populations. The Planning Guidance provides information about the importance of these sites, potential impacts of development on these sites, survey effort requirements to support planning applications within core habitat areas used by bat species for which the SACs are designated, mitigation strategies and Habitats Regulation Assessment. The guidance identifies core consultation zones, within which this guidance should be applied.

Glenmore Farm lies within the consultation zone identified for the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC, which is designated for the important populations of the rare Bechstein’s, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe bats which is supports. The SAC comprises a significant network of Wiltshire Bat SACs: underground sites used for bat hibernation. Surrounding areas if grassland, watercourse, scrub and woodland are important for foraging and Planning Guidance commuting bats and are vital to the survival of the SAC bat populations. Breeding colonies of Bechstein’s bats have been identified within a network of woodland sites to the south-east of Trowbridge (including Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI, Biss Wood and Green Lane Wood).

Potential impacts of development on ‘sensitive features’ are described. ‘Sensitive features’ include roost sites (including hibernation, swarming, maternity and transitory roosts within underground features, buildings and trees), foraging areas (including woodland, hedgerow, scrub, unimproved rough grassland, intensively grazed pastures, watercourses and wetland features), and commuting corridors (hedgerows and tree lines, woodland edges, riparian corridors and embankments).

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 6

The importance of protecting a network of sensitive features is highlighted; with sore roost and sore areas being identified. Specific criteria is provided for the identification of Core Roosts. Core Areas are defined as • 4km surrounding greater horseshoe Core Roosts; • 2km surrounding lesser horseshoe Core Roosts; • 1.5km surrounding Bechsteins Core Roosts; • 6km surrounding barbastelle Core Roosts.

Potential impacts from development to be considered in relation to bats physical changes to the landscape / habitat, lighting, noise, vibration and pollution.

Development proposals within Core Areas should be informed by survey work carried out in accordance with best practice guidelines, although exact survey requirements should reflect the sensitivity of the site, the nature and scale of proposals and should be agreed with the LPA Ecologist.

Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated into development proposals. Mitigation will be required where survey work has confirmed that a ‘Sensitive Feature’ used by a SAC species will be impacted. The Mitigation Strategy will need to set our how impacts will be avoided, and may include elements such as a Construction Methods Statement, details of any roost alterations / creation, pre- and post- development lux plots, a post construction monitoring scheme and ecological management plan.

Sufficient information must be submitted to fully assess the application in accordance with the Habitats Regulations.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 7

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Desktop Biological Records Search

3.1 The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) online database was searched, looking for all relevant statutory sites of international importance within 10km of the Site, and relevant statutory sites of national and local importance within 3km of the Site.

3.2 A biological records search was also conducted for the area of land encompassing the Site and adjacent land within an approximate 2km radius. Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre (WSBRC) was contacted for records of non-statutorily designated wildlife sites and protected/notable species. The results of the records search are discussed within the report where appropriate. Full copies of the records provided are not included within this report in accordance with WSBRC confidentially agreement, however this information can be provided by WSBRC on request.

3.3 An on-line literature search was also completed in relation to additional bat survey data known to exist in relation to other proposed development within the Westbury area (including the Westbury Bypass, Ashton Park Strategic Allocation and Hawkeridge Business Park).

3.4 Biological records provide a useful indication of the species present within a searched locality. However, it should be noted that the absence of a given species from a data search cannot be taken to represent actual absence. Furthermore, species distribution patterns should be interpreted with caution.

Site Survey

3.5 The Site was visited on 17 April 2012 by Clare Caudwell MCIEEM, assisted by Jack Ward, in order to undertake an 'extended Phase 1' survey of the proposed development Site. Information gathered during the Phase 1 survey was updated during 2014 using information gathered during the course of Site visits to complete protected species surveys as detailed below.

3.6 Extended Phase 1 habitat survey is at a level intermediate between the Phase 17 survey (where standardised habitat mapping is undertaken together with making notes on dominant and notable species) and the more detailed survey techniques that may be used to specifically record or survey particular habitats or species.

7 Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. Reprinted by JNCC, Peterborough. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 8

3.7 In this survey, plant species observed within each habitat type are recorded and habitats are classified and mapped. Scientific names of botanical species are referenced in accordance with Stace 8. Note is also taken of the more conspicuous fauna present during the survey, with particular attention paid to any evidence of, or potential for, the presence of protected or notable species.

Bat Surveys

Internal / external inspection of buildings 3.8 The buildings within the Site were inspected on 12 May 2014 by Clare Caudwell MCIEEM and Kate Kibble ACIEEM, both Natural England licenced bat workers. The survey comprised of an internal and external inspection of the farmhouse and adjacent barns/stables for signs of, and potential for, roosting bats. An update inspection of the farm buildings was completed on 14 July 2014.

3.9 Binoculars were used to examine the buildings externally to assess the general suitability of the structures for bat roosting and to identify potential bat access points and roosting features, such as crevices in external walls or beneath roofing materials.

3.10 The internal building inspection involved close examination of any accessible areas using high-powered torches to look for the presence of roosting bats and signs such as droppings, urine stains, bat feeding remains, scratch marks, signs of wear and fur-grease stains. Droppings are most often found beneath favoured resting places or feeding perches, or found adhering to walls, windows or sills. Within the farmhouse, the main roof space has been converted to living space though an internal inspection could be carried out within an enclosed space at the eaves.

Ground-based tree assessment/endoscope of orchard trees 3.11 A number of trees in a small orchard area within the Site were noted to support features suitable for bat roosting. Where accessible (by ladder), these features were closely inspected by Clare Caudwell on 13 May 2014 with an endoscope to identify bats or their field signs.

DNA Analysis of Bat Dropping Samples 3.12 Samples of any bat droppings were collected and sent off for DNA analysis to determine the species origin. DNA analysis was undertaken by the Waterford Institute of Technology, Republic of Ireland.

Emergence / ‘return-to-roost’ surveys 3.13 A dusk and three dawn surveys were undertaken of the on-site buildings and orchard trees between May and August 2014 in suitable weather conditions (summarised in Appendix C) for approximately 1.5 - 2 hours following BST sunset or prior to BST sunrise times, respectively.

8 Stace, C. A. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles (Third edition), University Press, Cambridge. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 9

3.14 During the first three surveys (12 May, 10 June and 25 June 2014) one surveyor was positioned to watch the south and west elevations of the farmhouse whilst a second watched the north and east elevations from within the stables courtyard, moving periodically to identify any bat activity or roosting behaviour associated with the barns and stables. An additional surveyor was used for the dawn survey of 25 June 2014 to provide better coverage of the orchard to the west of the farm buildings, to watch for bats returning to roost within the fruit trees. The final dawn survey of 15 August 2014 was completed by two surveyors focusing on identification of any potential roosting site within the orchard and hayloft (B1).

3.15 Surveyors were aided by broadband BatBox Duet detectors and/or EchoMeter 3 (EM3) and Anabat SD1 recorders. All bat passes were noted along with the time, the species and any information regarding behaviour, wherever possible. Bat calls were subsequently downloaded and analysed using the computer software AnalookW (version 0.3.8.22) to confirm species identification, where possible.

Bat activity transect surveys and static monitoring 3.16 Three dusk and one dusk and dawn bat activity transect surveys were completed between May and August 2014. Transect surveys were completed by two surveyors and led by a Natural England licenced surveyor during each month.

3.17 The surveys and static monitoring were undertaken during suitable weather conditions (see Appendix C). Dusk surveys and commenced between c.15 and 30 minutes before BST sunset, continuing for three hours after sunset 9. The dawn survey was undertaken over the two hours leading up to dawn.

3.18 Each surveyor walked a planned transect route covering hedgerows and other key parts of the Site, with three or five minute pauses made at several pre- selected transect points along the route to record bat activity and provide a representative sample of the Site. Bat activity between stop-points was also recorded and described. The transect routes and stop-points are shown on the Bat Survey Plan (CSa/1961/102) in Appendix C. A combination of Echometer3 (EM3) and Anabat SD 1 bat recorders, aided by BatBox Duet detectors, were used during the surveys. When bats were encountered, notes were recorded on the likely species, behaviour and time of activity.

3.19 As well as making a qualitative assessment of bat activity at the Site based on surveyor observations, a quantitative analysis of the data recorded during the transect surveys was also undertaken. Data recorded during the surveys was downloaded and analysed using Analook W to identify the species present and

9 The Bat Survey Guidelines (Hundt, 2012) state that at sites within 4km of a greater horseshoe bat roost, three hours may be required. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 10

quantify the number of ‘bat passes’ which were calculated from the number of recorded files containing a bat call. Although not synonymous with actual numbers of bats, this provides an indication of the levels of activity across the Site. The number of bat passes for each species and the total number of minutes each transect point was sampled for was used to calculate the mean number of passes/minute recorded at each transect point during each survey undertaken. This analysis is provided in Appendix C and was used to calculate a mean bat pass/minute index for each transect point across all months surveyed. Bat passes recorded in time spent walking between transect points was not included within the calculation of bat passes/minutes but have been included within discussion of bat activity at the Site.

3.20 On 14 August 2014 (during the August transect survey), two Anabat SD1 recorders were deployed for the duration of one night within the hayloft (B1) and the north-western boundary hedgerow H1 to gather additional information about bat activity and flight paths at these locations.

3.21 Static monitoring of bat activity across the wider Site was also completed on a monthly basis with two static SongMeter 2 (SM2) monitoring device being set out for a minimum of four consecutive nights in May, June, July and August. These were situated along the central hedgerow (H4) and within the orchard as key areas of bat habitat which are likely to be impacted. In June, July and August, an additional SM2 was deployed along the Site’s northern hedgerow (H2). Detectors were programmed to record from approximately half an hour before sunset through to sunrise.

3.22 Weather data for all nights that SM2s were deployed was obtained to help select the three most suitable nights for bat activity, to be taken forward for analysis. This was a qualitative judgement based on a combination of temperature, wind speed and precipitation data. Data was taken from Met Office on-line records for Larkhill, the closest weather station to the Site. Details of the dates which SM2s were deployed and the weather conditions are provided in Appendix C.

3.23 Recorded bat calls were analysed for the three ‘most suitable’ nights of weather for bat activity using Kaleidoscope Professional, with automatic identification being verified manually as appropriate. Analysis was also undertaken using the number of bat ‘passes’ as calculated from the number of recorded files containing a bat call. The longer time periods covered by the static recordings allow a more accurate assessment of bat species diversity at the Site to be made, when compared to transect survey results in isolation.

Survey limitations 3.24 The dusk transect survey of 12 May 2014 was disrupted c.1hr 20 minutes prior to completion due to disturbance along the transect route from emergency services operations in F1.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 11

3.25 Temperatures during the surveys of 14/15 August 2014 dropped to 9.5°C towards the end, potentially influencing level of bat activity which was lower than in previous months’ surveys.

3.26 During the static monitoring survey of August 2014, technical issues meant that a night with suboptimal weather conditions (slightly high winds: 8-9 knots) was used for analysis. Technical issues with the monitoring device on the northern hedgerow meant that monitoring on the third night was cut slightly short, however quantitative analysis of data has been adjusted to account for this.

Badger Survey

3.27 An update badger survey of the Site was undertaken by Clare Caudwell MCIEEM on 13 May 2014. This involved methodically searching for and mapping any field signs of badger such as: • Badger setts; • Feeding evidence such as snuffle holes made during foraging; • Badger guard hairs caught on coarse vegetation, fences, etc.; • Latrines, often positioned along territorial boundaries; and • Foraging tracks/push-throughs under fences and other obstacles.

3.28 When setts are located, the number and usage level of holes and the type of sett they comprise are recorded and categorised according to the criteria listed in Table 2 (Harris et al. 1989, Cresswell et al. 1990, Wilson et al. 1997).

Table 2. Badger sett and hole definitions Sett Type Main Setts - These usually have a large number of holes with large spoil heaps, and the sett generally looks well used. There will be well-used paths to and from the sett and between sett entrances. Although normally the breeding sett is in continuous use, it is possible to find a main sett that has become disused due to excessive digging or some other reason; it should be recorded as a disused main sett. In the first survey, the average size of an active main sett was twelve holes (including all categories of use).

Annexe setts - They are often close to a main sett, usually less than 150 metres away, and are usually connected to the main sett by one or more obvious well-worn paths. They usually have several holes, but may not be in use all the time even if the main sett is very active. In the first survey the average size was five holes (including all categories of use).

Subsidiary setts - These often only have a few holes; four (including all categories of use) was the average number in the first survey. They are usually at least 50 metres from a main sett, and do not have an obvious path connecting with another sett. They are not continuously active.

Outlying setts - These usually have only one or two holes, often have little spoil outside the hole, have no obvious path connecting with another sett, and are only used sporadically. When not in use by badgers, they are often taken over by foxes or even rabbits. However, they can still be recognised as badger setts by the shape of the tunnel (not the actual entrance hole), which is usually at least 250mm in diameter, and is rounded or a flattened oval shape. Fox and rabbit tunnels are smaller and often taller than broad. Hole Type Well used holes - These are clear of any debris or vegetation, are obviously in regular use, and may or may not have been excavated recently.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 12

Partially used holes - These are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance, or have moss and / or other plants growing in or around the entrance. Partially used holes could be in regular use after a minimal amount of clearance. Disused holes - These have not been in use for some time, are partially or completely blocked, and could not be used without a considerable amount of clearance. If the hole has been disused for some time, all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be, and the remains of the spoil heap, which may be covered in moss or plants.

Breeding Bird Survey

3.29 A breeding bird survey, based on Common Birds Census (CBC) methodology was carried across the Site between 08 April and 25 June 2014 encompassing four visits spaced out over this period. This survey effort is considered appropriate to determine the composition of the main breeding community at a site dominated by pasture and other habitats of generally low ecological value. The surveys were completed by Kate Kibble ACIEEM, and the conduct of the fieldwork was commensurate with good ornithological practice, with due attention being given to parameters which may affect the activity of birds such as period in the year, time of day and weather conditions.

3.30 The purpose of the survey was to assess the composition of the breeding bird community within the site, determine the presence/absence of any protected or notable species of conservation importance and whether any populations of such species are significant at a local or wider level. Data provided on the distribution of species within the survey area indicates the importance of parts of the Site to each bird species and to birds in general.

3.31 The survey methodology adopted follows the standard CBC method 10 and comprises: • Identification of breeding species within the habitats at the Site; • Identification of all birds seen and heard with locations mapped on a large- scale plan; and • Records of the total numbers of birds seen including juveniles.

3.32 On each survey the surveyor walked a slow route across the whole Site which ensured that both species of open and boundary habitats would be detected. Alternative versions of the route were taken on each visit so that different parts of the Site would be surveyed at different parts of the morning, thus avoiding temporal bias associated with bird activity or other factors such as increasing traffic noise. Each survey commenced shortly after dawn, when birds are most active, and continued for approximately two hours during suitable weather conditions. Birds were detected by sound or sight, using a pair of 10 x 42 binoculars.

3.33 All birds detected at the Site were recorded using standardised codes to map their distribution and behaviour, and to differentiate between individuals for the purposes of territory mapping. The criteria used during the ‘Atlas’ surveys of

10 Bibby et al (2000). Bird Census Techniques . 2 nd Edition. Academic press, London. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 13

1988-1991 11 were used to ascertain the breeding status of birds at the Site (as given in Table 3).

Table 3: Categories of Breeding Bird Evidence Breeding Status Cat egories Evidence criteria Confirmed breeding: • Distraction display or injury feigning; • Used nests or eggshells found (occupied or laid within the survey period); • Recently fledged young or downy young; • Adults entering or leaving a nest site in circumstances indicating occupied • Nest or an adult sitting on nest; • Adults carrying food for young or faecal sacs; • Nest containing eggs; • Nest with young seen or heard. Probable breeding : • Pairs observed in suitable nesting habitat in breeding season; • Permanent territory presumed through registration or territorial behaviour • (song etc.) on at least two different days, a week apart, at the same place; • Display and courtship; • Visiting probable nest site; • Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls from adults; • Building nest or excavating nest hole. Possible breeding: • Species observed in breeding season in possible nesting habitat. • Singing male(s) present or breeding calls heard in breeding season

3.34 In addition to the Site-wide breeding bird surveys, targeted surveys of the farmhouse and surrounding stables were undertaken to identify the number of active house martin Delichon urbica and swallow Hirundo rustica nests. These surveys immediately followed the breeding bird surveys in May and June and involved watching groups of nests for c.10-15 minute periods to watch for birds returning with food, incubating eggs, presence of chicks etc.

Great Crested Newt Survey

3.35 Ponds within 500m of the Site were subject to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment (following by Oldham et al 12 ) in April 2012 to assess their suitability for breed great crested newt Triturus cristatus (GCN). Pond surveys to confirm the presence / absence of GCN within suitable ponds was completed between April – May 2012. Three ponds were included in the survey, with data for a fourth pond being provided by Keystone Environmental who were monitoring the pond that year following implementation of a EPS licence relating to GCN known to use that pond. The location of ponds surveyed is shown in the Pond Location Plan (CSa/1961/101) in Appendix E.

11 European Ornithology Atlas Committee, 1979. Categories of Breeding Bird Evidence

12 Oldham et al . (2000) Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus ). Herpetological Journal 10: 143-155. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 14

3.36 GCN surveys were completed during April and May 2012. Six surveys were completed using a combination of three survey methods, comprising bottle trapping, torchlight searching and egg search, as recommended and described within English Nature’s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines and within the Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook 13 .

3.37 Bottle traps were set out during the evening, generally around dusk. The traps were then checked early the following morning when captured newts were examined and then released unharmed. Bottle traps were set out at approximately two metre intervals along all accessible stretches of bank. Torchlight searches were carried out just after dusk with a one million candlepower Clulite™ torch. The number of newts seen at every two-metre station was recorded and an overall count was obtained for great crested newts and other amphibians. During each torching survey, the minimum temperature was recorded. Each survey was undertaken by two surveyors. On each survey occasion vegetation at pond margins was also searched for the presence of great crested newt eggs. Where great crested newt eggs were confirmed to be present searching on subsequent surveys was ceased to minimise disturbance impacts to breeding newts.

Evaluation and Assessment

3.38 The spatial scope of this appraisal aims to identify all ecological features within the ‘likely zone of influence’ i.e. the area across which direct and indirect impacts may occur, throughout the lifespan of the project.

3.39 Ecological features are valued based on the IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment 2006 14 . These guidelines promote a standardised, scientifically rigorous and transparent approach to the assessment process, which is then further informed by professional judgment and interpretation. The process of valuing ecological features can be complex and subjective.

3.40 A number of factors need to be taken into account when applying professional judgement to value ecological features. Those addressed in this report include:

• designated sites and features; • biodiversity value; • potential value, specifically in relation to statutory designated sites and S41/BAP habitats and species; • secondary or supportive value to SSSI; • legal issues, such as may arise as a result of designated sites and features being affected.

13 Langton, T.E.S, Beckett, C.L & Foster, J.P. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook , Froglife, Halesworth. 14 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 15

3.41 Parameters such as the size, conservation status and viability of any given feature are all relevant in determining biodiversity value. Furthermore the value of a species and/ or habitat may vary depending on the location within its range.

3.42 Legal protection needs to be considered separately from biodiversity value. Our assessment and reporting will highlight legal issues and the appropriate mechanism for dealing with any such constraint. However not all legally protected species are rare (e.g. badgers) so legal requirements and ecological value are separate considerations.

3.43 Assessment of social or community and economic value should be undertaken by a sociologist or economist respectively; similarly multi-functional features require an integrated assessment. This lies beyond the scope of this ecological appraisal.

Geographic Frame of Reference 3.44 In assigning value to an ecological feature, the following geographic frames of reference are used:

• international; • national; • regional; • county (or metropolitan in London); • district (or borough or unitary authority); • local (or parish); and • site (less than local or parish)

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 16

4.0 RESULTS AND EVALUATION

Site Location

4.1 The Site is located to the north of Westbury on the B3097, approximately 15km south-east of Bath on the edge of the West Wiltshire Downs. The central grid reference of the Site is ST 863 528.

4.2 The adjacent land use includes arable land to the east and west and residential housing to the south. West Wilts Trading Estate border the Site to the north and north-west of the Site. The B3097 borders the Site to the east and south. A new business park is proposed on farmland to the east of the Site, on the opposite side of Hawkeridge Road.

Designated Sites

Statutory Sites 4.3 The MAGIC database search (see Appendix A) revealed that there are no statutory wildlife site designations within or adjacent to the Site. However two internationally important sites occur within 10km of the Site boundary, and three nationally important sites occur within 3km of the Site boundary. Details of these sites are provided within Table 4 below.

Table 4: Statutory and non-statutory wildlife sites in proximity to the survey area. Distance & Site name & bearing from Description designation Site (km) Sites of International Importance within 10km Designated as a SAC for is habitats ( Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands; and semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates) and Salisbury Plain c.3.4km south its value to the marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia . SAC & SPA east Designated as a SPA for internationally important populations of breeding hobby Falco subbuteo , quail Coturnix coturnix , stone- curlew Burhinus oedicnemus and non-breeding hen harrier Circus cyaneus . Designated for its riparian Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion community and for the presence of Annex II species River Avon SAC c.8.5km south desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana , sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus , brook lamprey Lampetra planeri , Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and bullhead Cottus gobio . Sites of National Importance within 3km

Floristically-rich ancient woodland supporting an outstanding Picket & c1.1km north range of butterfly and moth species and woodland birds. A range Clanger Wood east of small mammal species and common lizard Lacerta vivipara SSSI have been recorded.

Westbury 1.9km south Ironstone Designated for its geological importance. west Quarry SSSI

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 17

Designated for ancient woodland and species-rich grassland habitats. There is a diverse invertebrate assemblage including rare Bratton Downs c.2.7km south species. The believed largest colony of Adonis blue Polyommatus SSSI east bellargus in Wiltshire is supported. The area is also notified for its geomorphological features.

Non-Statutory Sites 4.4 The data request response from WSBRC confirms that there are 10 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) occurring within 2km of the Site. Details of these sites are summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Non statutory sites within a 2km search area. Distance and Site name bearing from Brief description Site Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)

Westbury Lakes c.400m south Two large open areas of freshwater lakes LWS Round Wood, c.960m north- Ancient semi-natural broadleaved woodland on flat clay land. Heywood LWS east Fairwood Road c.1.7km south Two scrubby areas of rabbit-grazed limestone grassland on either Railway Line west side of, and directly adjacent to an active railway line. LWS Brokerswood and Hazel Wood c.1.9km west Mixed semi-natural and plantation woodland used for recreation. LWS Kettle Wood c.1.9km Small coppice woodland of heritage interest. Lane LWS north-east Round wood (near c.2km west Semi-natural woodland with some coniferous plantation. Brokerswood) LWS Flowers Wood c.2km north A small semi-natural woodland of coppiced oak, hawthorn and LWS east hazel

General Site Description

4.5 The Site consists of semi-improved grassland pasture surrounded by hedgerows and sub-divided into paddocks. Most areas were heavily grazed by horses at the time of survey in 2012, although grazing was relaxed in some areas of the Site when visited in 2014 (including F1, F8 and parts of F2 and F5), resulting in a more herb-rich sward developing in places. The Site is surrounded by hedgerows many of which contain trees, with one hedgerow bisecting the northern and southern halves of the Site. A farmhouse with amenity planting, associated buildings and stables, hard-standing and a ménage enclosure are also present. Aquatic habitats on-site include ditches and an ornamental pond in the garden of the farmhouse.

4.6 The habitats present within application area are illustrated on the Habitats Plan (CSa/1961/100) in Appendix B which has been updated to reflect any changes since 2012. Fields, hedgerows and buildings at the Site have been assigned identification codes on the Habitats Plan to aid with interpretation of survey results.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 18

Habitats and Flora

Notable Flora Records 4.7 There are records of 23 notable plant species within 2km of the Site boundary. The majority of these relate to Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI. One record of Smith’s pepperwort Lepidium heterophyllum , a Wiltshire Notable Species, is given for a grid-reference within the Site though the description states that is was found on waste land to the north of the railway in 1990. Stinking hellebore Helleborus foetidus was recorded in 2008 within a small wood at the Ham c.60m south of the Site and chives Alium schoenoprasum was found at Westbury Lakes c.400m south of the Site in 2010. Both stinking hellebore and chives are Nationally Scarce species (occur in less than 100 hectads in Britain).

4.8 Many of these species are considered unlikely to be found on-site, mostly being associated with woodland or waste ground. Some species, such as monk’s- hood Aconitum napellus and cornflower Centaurea cyanus have been found more distantly on roadside verges and could potentially be found within the field margins, however with the current level of grazing this is unlikely.

Semi-improved Grassland 4.9 The majority of the Site is composed of grazed pasture bordered by hedgerows and fencing, with the main fields sub-divided into paddocks by electrical fencing. All fields present were categorised as semi-improved grassland, with most being of similar botanical makeup. When surveyed in 2012 the sward was short and close grazed in all fields. Grazing has continued within most areas of the Site on a rotational basis in the interim, although field F1 in the northern part of the Site was cut for hay during July 2014.

4.10 Semi-improved grassland is dominated by perennial rye grass Lolium perenne with other grass species present including annual meadow-grass Poa annua , cocks foot Dactylis glomerata , false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius , crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis , sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum and bent grasses Agrostis sp.

4.11 Broadleaved herbs within the sward are occasional / scattered, with little evidence of much herb content in the most heavily grazed areas. Species recorded include dandelion Taraxacum agg., bush vetch Vicia sepium , common vetch V. sativa , common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum , common sorrel Rumex acetosa , sheep’s sorrel R. acetosella , ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata , red clover Trifolium pratense , cranesbill sp., Geranium sp., creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens , meadow buttercup R. acris , bulbous buttercup R. bulbosus , Shepherd’s-purse Capsella bursa-pastoris , red dead-nettle Lamium purpureum , white dead nettle L. album , bristly oxtongue Helminthotheca echiodes , common chickweed Stellaria media, groundsel Senecio vulgaris, oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, yarrow Achillea millefolium , common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus , meadow vetchling

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 19

Lathyrus pratensis , common knapweed Centaurea nigra , goat’s-beard Tragopogon pratensis, selfheal Prunella vulgaris , lady’s bedstraw Galium verum , field speedwell Veronica spp ., wavy bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa and creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans .

4.12 Tall ruderals scattered within the sward and along hedge margins include spear thistle Cirsium vulgare , creeping thistle C. arvense hogweed Heracleum sphondylium , cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, dock Rumex spp. and ragwort Senecio jacobaea.

Photo 1. Field 1 (north) Photo 2. Field 2 (south)

Hedgerows and Trees 4.13 Native hedgerows are present at field boundaries, with ornamental hedgerows are present in the farmhouse garden and along the main access drive. Hedgerow descriptions are found in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Descriptions of hedgerows on Site. Hedge No. Brief description Native Trees and Woody Status Species present Hedge 1 C.160m in length. Mature hedgerow 5- Hawthorn, blackthorn, elm, field Species 6m in height, southern section is maple, ash (mature/semi- poor defunct with trees with the northern mature), bramble. section previously side-flailed to c.3m. Hedge 2 C.300m in length. Mature double laid Hawthorn, blackthorn, dog rose, Species hedge with ditch. 5-6m high, recently privet, elm, field maple (semi- rich side-flailed to c.4m. Gaps in sections mature), willow (semi-mature), with scrubby areas. bramble. Hedge 3 C.70m in length following the B3097. Hawthorn, blackthorn, elm, field Species The hedge is flailed and topped maple, sycamore (semi-mature). poor topped at c.2m. Hedge 4 C.240m in length. Defunct and gappy Hawthorn, Prunus sp., field Species in places, 4-5m high with a c.1m deep maple, blackthorn, hazel rich seasonally wet ditch on the southern Corylus avellana , elm, elder, side with associated scrub. bramble. Hedge 5 C.140m in length. 4ft high flailed single Hawthorn. Species laid hedgerow with dry ditch. C.6m poor access gateway.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 20

Hedge 6 C.120m in length. C.5m high single Hawthorn, elder, bramble. Species hedge c.1m wide, gappy in places with poor post and wire fencing. Ornamental/ Closely flailed c.3-4ft ornamental privet Privet. Species introduced hedges on both sides of the main poor hedgerows driveway.

Photo 3. Hedge H4 (central) Photo 4. Hedgerow H1 (west)

4.14 Scattered trees occur within hedgerows, the farmhouse garden and within a remnant orchard area in F6. Native trees within the hedgerows are noted in Table 6 above. Trees within the farmhouse garden and along the access drive to the farmhouse comprise semi-mature and mature beech Fagus sylvatica , horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum , willow, hawthorn and field maple. A small orchard area occurs adjacent to the farm buildings, comprising mature / semi-mature apple Malus sp.

Photo 5. Orchard area. Photo 6. Orchard tree.

Standing Water 4.15 Seasonally wet ditches occur at the bases of hedgerows H1, H2, H4 and H6. A small ornamental fish pond (P2 on Pond Location Plan CSa/1961/101), c.1.5x1.5m by c.60cm depth, is present in the garden to the west of the farmhouse. The pond is shallow with shelving at the edges, with lining and a

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 21

heron net cover. The immediate habitat to the pond is amenity grassland, flower beds, introduced ornamental hedgerows and shrubs.

Fauna

Bats Records / Background Information 4.16 The data search returned by SWBRC has revealed a large number bat records from within a 2km search radius around the Site. These comprise records of 13 species including the rare Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii , barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus , lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros and greater horseshoe bat R. ferrumequinum , as well as many records of unidentified bat species.

Bechstein’s Bat Records 4.17 SWBRAC has provided a record of Bechstein’s bat (listed as probable Bechstein’s) within the 1km grid-square containing the Site from 2006. Bechstein’s maternity roosts have been identified within Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI (53 bats) 15 located c.1.1km north-east of the Site, Biss Wood located c.1.6km north-east and Green Lane Wood LNR located c.2.5km north- east, with a number of smaller local woods between these site also known to be used by Bechstein’s including Flowers Wood, Kennel Wood and Church plantation 16,17 . A number of radio tracking studies have been undertaken over the last 10 years (e.g. Wiltshire Bat Group 2003 – 2007; Greena Ecological Consultancy 2006) in the local area with the aim of understanding how bats breeding within these woodlands are using the surrounding landscape, and if these areas are key breeding and foraging areas for bats associated within the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC. This has revealed Bechstein’s bats were foraging within their maternity woodlands as well as using surrounding farmland for foraging and commuting.

Greater and Lesser Horseshoe Bat Records 4.18 Greater horseshoe (GHS) and lesser horseshoe (LHS) bats have been recorded roosting within a number of farm buildings and other sites within the local area. Closest to the Site, a roost of two LHS bats has been recorded within a cave along the railway embankment in 2010 c.170m south of the Site. LHS bats have been recorded nearby during nocturnal surveys on Shallow Wagon Lane c.200m from the Site as well as at Glenmore Farm in 2008.

4.19 The closest recorded of a GHS bat roost provided by SWBRC occurs c.900m east within Heywood. There are several records of roosts within different properties in this area ranging between c.900-1km east of the Site. A survey undertaken at Hawkeridge Farm in 2013 18 details c.20 droppings within a lean-

15 Westbury Bypass Bat Survey, RPS, 2004. 16 Bat Special Areas of Conservation: Planning Guidance for Wiltshire. 17 Further Information to Support The Wiltshire Core Strategy Assessment under The Habitats Regulations. Wiltshire Council Landscape and Design Team, March 2013. 18 Ahern Ecology, Hawkeridge Farm Bat Inspection Report, November 2013 Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 22

to fuel storage room which appeared to be from greater horseshoe bat, indicating an occasional roost probably used for night roosting. Bat activity survey work undertaken during 2013 and 2014 to inform proposals for Hawkeridge Business Park 19 located adjacent to Glenmore Farm on the eastern side of Hawkeridge Road, recorded low activity (2 passes) from GHS, although LSH were not recorded. Records of GHS are also present from Shallow Wagon Lane.

Barbastelle Bat Records 4.20 Within 2km of the Site, SWBRC have provided records of barbastelle from habitats c.450m to the east near the sewage works. A singe barbastelle pass was recorded along the disused railway line to the east of Glenmore Farm, during surveys undertaken in relation to Hawkeridge Business Park in 2013 19 .

Other Bat Records 4.21 Serotine Eptesicus serotinus , noctule Nyctalus noctula , whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus , Daubenton’s bat M. daubentonii , Natterer’s bat M. nattereri , brown long-eared Plecotus auritus and common and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus/pygmaeus bats have also been recorded locally. The majority of records occur for the 1km grid-square containing the Site and open land to the east following bat activity surveys undertaken in 2006 and 2008 as part of the proposed bypass works. Serotine, an unidentified Myotis sp. bat and common pipistrelle have been provided for Glenmore Farm following activity surveys in 2008. No roosts were identified at Glenmore Farm during this work. However, a record of two Myotis sp. bat droppings (species not identified) found in the stable block at Glenmore Farm in 2006 has also been provided.

Inspection of Buildings and Trees 4.22 Buildings have been numbered on the Habitats Plan to aid interpretation of building descriptions and survey results.

4.23 The farmhouse (B3) comprises a two-storey brick building with the upper-storey rendered. The main roof is hipped with two brick chimneys and constructed from interlocking clay tiles and flat, clay hip tiles. Photovoltaic panels cover most of the southern and western aspects of the roof. There is a pitched, single storey extension and dormer window to the north-side of the house with a bay window and conservatory to the south.

4.24 The external features, including the roof tiles, chimney flashing, window/door lintels and eaves, predominantly appeared well fitting and good condition. Some slightly raised tiles and lead flashing were noted on the bay window with a few gaps visible under the main roof tiles. The sides of the dormer window on the north side of the house are covered in a bitumen-type felt and possible gaps were noted behind this felt where the dormer joins the main roof slope. No evidence of bats was found on the exterior of the house.

19 Keystone Environmental Ltd, 2013. Hawkeridge Bat Activity Report (8539/8) Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 23

4.25 The roof space of the house has been converted into a room although an enclosed area is still present around the eaves forming a c.1.5m 2 corridor around the room which was inspected. The structure of the roof comprises wooden beams and sarking. Water pipes and wiring clutter up the space and deep insulation was laid approximately four years prior which mostly extends right to the eaves blocking potential access points. The space was generally noted to be well-sealed though an uninspected gap >1m long between the wall plate and the roof apex was not visible. No evidence of bats were found though some rat droppings were noted.

4.26 A complex of stables (B2) adjoins the farmhouse garage. These are of brick and breezeblock construction with wooden-slat walls to let in light and slate, pitched roofs in good condition. There is also a small area of corrugated metal roofing. The slates are lined with sarking on the underside which also in good condition. The buildings are fairly dark but are in constant use.

4.27 Two larger barns (B1 and B3) containing more stables and hay storage are present at the Site. They are constructed from a mix of breezeblock and wood panelling with corrugated asbestos roofs. Both are light and airy, and regularly used.

4.28 No evidence of bats or features with notable bat roosting potential were identified within the stables or barns. No bat droppings / urine staining etc. was observed within the buildings when they were inspected in May 2014, however a repeat inspection of the barns in July 2014 revealed two fresh bat droppings found within the hayloft area of barn B1. The droppings were found separately, and were not below any features considered likely to be used for roosting. DNA analysis of the droppings revealed them to be from common pipistrelle.

Photo 3. Stables (B2) Photo 4. Hay Barn (B1)

4.29 Suitable features (e.g. cracks / rot holes) exhibited by trees within the small orchard area within the central section of the Site (comprising 6 apple and 1 pear tree) were inspected for signs of any bat roosting having taken place. No evidence to suggest a current roost was present (such as droppings, scratch marks, bats present) was identified.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 24

Emergence / ‘return-to-roost’ surveys 4.30 A minimum of five species of bat were recorded using habitats in vicinity of the farmhouse, barns and orchard during the surveys: common and soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Myotis sp. and brown long-eared bat. Bat activity was predominantly seen to comprise a small number of pipistrelle bats foraging fairly continuously around the gardens of the house, orchard and stable area, particularly over muck/dung piles, however frequent bouts of foraging by pipistrelle and/or Myotis bats was also observed within the hayloft (B1) during surveys in May, July and August. Noctules were recorded commuting overhead during each survey, usually with one or two passes recorded, though several passes were recorded from a bat/bats commuting and foraging to the east of the Site near dawn on 25 June 2014. One call from a brown long-eared bat was detected to the west of the house on 10 June 2014.

4.31 No bats were seen to emerge or return-to-roost within any of the buildings or trees watched during the surveys. The earliest bat recorded during the dusk survey was a common pipistrelle bat near the orchard/garage c.12 minutes after sunset. During the dawn surveys, no bats were seen later than 16 minutes prior to sunrise. On both dawn surveys of the farmhouse a pipistrelle bat was seen to briefly circle the west chimney but did not to enter a roost.

4.32 The Anabat detector left to record bat activity within the hay barn during the night of 14 August 2014 recorded fairly continuous activity by soprano and common pipistrelle bats (first bat 20:44, 11 minutes after sunset) with a Myotis bat foraging within the hay barn from 21:20hrs. Bat activity within the barn continued until 23:23hrs after which they were occasional passes from common pipistrelle and Myotis bats until 00:38hrs. No bats were recorded within the barn after this time.

Bat activity transect surveys 4.33 A minimum of eight species were recorded using the Site during the transect surveys: common, soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule, serotine, brown long-eared bat, lesser horseshoe and Myotis bat species. Myotis sp. bats were not identified further to species-level due to overlap in the call parameters. Additionally, some calls were labelled as Nyctalus sp. due to similarities between the calls of noctule and Leisler’s bat N. leisleri .

4.34 Total bat passes recorded during each transect survey for each bat species and all bats are presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Appendix C. The number of bat passes recorded during the dusk surveys in June and July dusk surveys and the July dawn survey were similar (119 – 129 passes), with the number of passes being less than half of this during May and August. May, June and August surveys were dominated by common pipistrelle bats (over 80% of all activity). In July common pipistrelle accounted for c.72% of activity at dusk and c.47% at dawn. During these surveys the level of noctule activity was increased in relation to other months, and noctule bats (c. 6-7 bats observed at dusk and Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 25

dawn in July) were observed commuting across the Site, with a roosting site located to the north-east of the Site thought to be likely from the pattern of activity exhibited. Passes from other bat species were very limited ( ≤5 passes) during the survey with the exception of the July dawn survey when Myotis sp. accounted for c.19% of passes with Myotis sp. bats being observed foraging up and down the eastern boundary for a c.5 minute period at c.1hr and 25 minutes before sunrise.

4.35 In addition to Myotis sp. activity recorded along the transect routes, a single Myotis sp. bat was observed foraging within the hayloft (Building B1) for a large proportion of the July dusk survey, though no bats were detected within the barn during the following dawn survey. Single common pipistrelle bats were also seen foraging in and out of the barns on previous surveys during May and June and common and soprano pipistrelle bats were also recorded foraging for an extended period within the barn during August.

4.36 A single lesser horseshoe bat pass was recorded mid-way along the northern hedgerow at 22:31hrs during the August survey. No other lesser horseshoe activity was recorded during the manual surveys.

4.37 Hedgerows and trees were most commonly used by bats at the Site, with the majority of foraging and/or commuting bats detected along all boundaries of the Site. Most bat activity was recorded within Transect 2 by the orchard (point A; average of 0.9 passes / minute) and within Transect 1 at point I in the south- west corner of field F1 (0.75 passes / minute). Activity at these locations was dominated by foraging common pipistrelle bats, although soprano, noctule and Myotis sp. bat passes were recorded in low numbers. No bats were recorded along the southern boundary of the Site by point G, with only single bat passes recorded away from the hedgerows within central areas of the field (points A, Transect 1 and points B and I on Transect 2), although noctule bats were observed flying over open areas of the Site from other transect stop points along the field boundaries (as discussed previously). Total bat passes and bat passes / minute calculated for each species at transect points across the Site are present in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 1 provided in Appendix C.

Static monitoring surveys 4.38 The same range of species recorded during manual surveys were recorded during the automated surveys, with the addition of greater horseshoe bat. Analysis of summarised static bat monitoring data is provided in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 2 in Appendix C.

4.39 Bat activity levels varied across the Site and between months. Bat activity was greatest (relative to hedgerows monitored) within the orchard area, with a peak in activity in June of 24 passes / hour across nights sampled (538 total passes). Activity levels recorded along the northern and central hedgerows were broadly similar to each other during June and July; from 7.02 passes / hour (163 total passes on central hedgerow in July) and 10.35 passes / hour (232 total passes

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 26

on central hedge in June). Activity along the central and northern hedgerows was reduced in August (5 passes / hour central hedgerow; 0.85 passes / hour north hedgerow).

4.40 Common pipistrelle were the most frequently recorded species (2520 passes in total across the four months sampled), making up c.76.8% of all bat activity recorded across the Site during the monitoring periods. Only 7.26% of passes were attributed to noctule/Nyctalus sp. (238 passes), 5.9% soprano pipistrelle (195 passes), 6.9% to Myotis sp. (227 passes), 1.92% to lesser horseshoe (63 passes) and less than 1% to other species including serotine (15 passes), Nathusius’ pipistrelle (11 passes), greater horseshoe (5 passes) and brown long-eared (6 passes). This data is illustrated in Figure 3 in Appendix C.

4.41 Common pipistrelle activity varied between 0.32 and 19.31 passes / hour across the monitoring nights, with highest levels of pipistrelle activity recorded within the orchard area in all months. Closer examination of pipistrelle data revealed peaks of activity around dawn and dusk with sustained lower levels of activity throughout the night. Comparatively low numbers of soprano pipistrelle bat were recorded (<1 pass/hr) although more activity was recorded within the June monitoring period, with an average 3.43 passes / hour. Very few passes by Nathusius’ pipistrelle were recorded, with up to two passes detected per night at each sampling location.

4.42 Low levels of noctule/ Nyctalus sp. activity were recorded during May, June and August with most activity recorded in the orchard (peak 0.8 passes/hour during these months). In July, higher levels were recorded with between 1.43 and 3.88 passes/hour, with the most activity recorded over the orchard again. Analysis of nights with higher noctule bat activity showed consistently low activity for most night hours with a considerable peak pre-dawn (c.04:00 to 04:45).

4.43 Predominantly, very low activity by Myotis sp. bats was recorded between May and July by the automated detectors, with no more than five passes / night. Higher activity was recorded in August within the orchard with an average of 8.49 passes/hr on 15 August 2014 (80 passes total). Closer analysis revealed peaks of activity between midnight and 02:00hrs with 15-28 passes recorded in each hour. It is considered that this most likely relates to concentrated foraging activity by a small number of bats. Along the northern and central hedgerow peaks of Myotis sp. activity reached 3.09 and 0.52 passes/hr on 23 June and 10 July, respectively.

4.44 Several passes by serotine and brown long-eared bats were recorded by all detectors with no more than three passes recorded per night. No brown long- eared bats were recorded at the Site in May.

4.45 Four greater horseshoe bat passes were recorded along the northern hedgerow (H2) on 22 June 2014 between 02:00hrs and 03:00hrs with one additional pass recorded at this location on 15 August (01:40hrs). Lesser

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 27

horseshoe bats were detected along the northern hedgerow (H2; 4 passes) and along the central hedgerow (H4; 59 passes in total). Lesser horseshoe bat activity was predominantly low, equating to one or two passes per night however, although higher activity was detected along H4 during June and July with a peak of 3.47 passes/hour (27 passes) on 13 July 2014. Activity by this species was also highest in early morning with several bouts of increased activity between 01:00hrs to 03:00hrs.

4.46 The static Anabat deployed along the north-western hedgerow recorded low activity by common and soprano pipistrelle, with a single pass from a serotine bat at 22:28hrs and a Myotis bat at 23:43hrs, after which no more bats were detected.

Badgers 4.47 WSBRC have provided over 100 records of badgers within a 2km radius of the Site boundary indicating that badgers are active and well distributed within the local area. Four records from 2004 have been provided relating to the nearby Hawkeridge Farm/ disused railway embankment, including one of an outlier badger sett.

4.48 In 2012, a single outlier badger sett, was noted on the northern boundary (H2) of F1 (see Habitats Plan) with mammal trails observed leading away from the sett along the base of H2. Guard hairs and fresh spoil were found at the tunnel entrance and the tunnel was still clear in late spring 2014, indicating that the sett remains in use.

4.49 Two additional mammal holes were also identified during 2012 beneath H4 in the north-west corner of F2. The holes could not be re-found during the 2014 search however several mammal paths within the dense scrub and an active latrine and foraging activity nearby, along with the presence of guard hairs on an adjoining fence-line suggest that they may currently be used by badgers. Badger latrines were noted along H2 and H6. These features are indicated on the Habitats Plan provided in Appendix B.

4.50 Badgers were seen on two occasions during the nocturnal bat surveys, in both instances crossing the pasture in the southern half of the Site.

Other mammals 4.51 Records of otter Lutra lutra and water vole Arvicola amphibius have been provided for the local area, however due to lack of suitable habitat on or adjacent to the Site it is considered highly unlikely that these species would use the Site.

4.52 There are 35 records of hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus (UK BAP) within the local area. The nearest to the Site falls c.50m to the south within adjacent gardens. Other mammals recorded within the 2km radius include brown hare

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 28

Lepus europaeus (pre-1995) , water shrew Neomys fodiens and feral ferret Mustela putorius furo .

4.53 The Site has potential to be used by a range of widespread mammal species such as rodents, hedgehog and red fox Vulpes vulpes . All parts of the Site, particularly F1, have been seen to be regularly used by roe deer Capreolus capreolus with breeding in the long grassland/hedgerow bases also confirmed.

Birds 4.54 Records of 22 species of bird have been provided by WSBRC. None relate to the Site itself though many records are from Westbury Lakes c.200-400m south of the Site. Skylark Alauda arvensis have been recorded within the adjacent field to the east of the Site, and yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella c.360m to the east. Barn owl records are also present, with the closest, a tree roost recorded in 2002 from Blenches Mill Farm c.600m east of the Site.

4.55 Notable species recorded locally which have potential to occur on-site include starling Sturnus vulgaris , lapwing Vanellus vanellus , linnet Carduelis cannabina , brambling Fringilla montifringilla , cuckoo Cuculus canorus , red kite Milvus milvus , house sparrow Passer domesticus , yellowhammer, redwing Turdus iliacus , song thrush T. philomelos , fieldfare T. pilaris and herring gull Larus argentatus .

Breeding Bird Survey 4.56 A total of 34 bird species were recorded using the Site during the breeding bird species, of which seven were confirmed to breed on-site and an additional eight classed as probable breeders and 13 possible breeding species. Full results of the survey are provided in Appendix D.

4.57 One species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended), peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus , was recorded flying over the Site during the April survey. Seven species of the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) 20 were noted on Site: herring gull, cuckoo, song thrush, starling, house sparrow, linnet and yellowhammer. With the exception of starling, house sparrow and herring gull, these species were recorded on a single occasion in low numbers. Cuckoo was only seen to fly over the Site. Flocks of up to c.18 starling were regularly seen foraging with juveniles on the horse grazed pasture. Herring gull were seen to forage on-site but were mostly active on the industrial buildings to the west where they are presumed to be nesting. House sparrow were most frequent within hedgerows adjacent to the offsite gardens but a pair were noted to nest within the farmhouse on-site.

4.58 The hedgerows and trees on-site were noted to be the principal habitats of value to local bird species, in particular H2 and H4. Little bird activity was noted

20 Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296–341. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 29

along the roadside hedgerows and only a small number of species were recorded using the open grassland habitats including herring gull, lesser black- backed gull Larus fuscus and starling.

4.59 From May onwards, house martin Delichon urbica and swallow Hirundo rustica were foraging over the buildings and pasture with breeding confirmed in the farmhouse and stables, respectively. From repeat observations of nests, a total of 25 active house martin nests and four active swallow nests were identified, although several other swallow nests which may potentially be in use were also identified. Active house martin nests were predominantly located on the north and east sides of the farmhouse, with most swallow nesting taking place in the main stable complex (B2). A low number of pied wagtail Motacilla alba nets were also recorded within the farm buildings.

Reptiles 4.60 WSBRC have provided a large number of records of slow worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix and common lizard Zootoca vivipara and four records of adder Vipera berus for within the 2km radius of the Site. Slow-worm have been recorded numerous times along the nearby railway corridor and adjacent disused railway, with individuals translocated to habitats within c.60m south of the Site near the railway corridor in 2009. Most common lizard and grass snake records are old (pre-2000) and relate to Clanger and Picket Woods, as well as many of the locations where slow-worm have been recorded - including south of the Site along the railway. The closest adder record falls c.400m south-east of the Site at Westbury Lakes.

4.61 Whilst some habitats adjacent to the Site, such as gardens and/or hedgerow margins may hold the potential to support some widespread reptile species, opportunities for reptiles within the Site itself are considered to be limited. The grassland is heavily grazed for the majority of the year, it is unlikely that a resident reptile population is present at the Site.

Amphibians 4.62 WSBRC have provided a total of 16 great crested newt Triturus cristatus records for within the 2km search radius. Five records from c.150m south of the Site show counts of up to 28 great crested newts recorded within this pond complex during 2012. An additional record for the ‘Westbury ponds’ is given from 1977. There are also four records from West Wilts Trading Estate c.270m west of the Site all from 2008. Two historic records of common toad Bufo bufo have been provided, all over 1km from the Site boundary, along with many records of common frog Rana temporaria c.150m south of the Site at their nearest.

4.63 Surveys undertaken in 2010 (Keystone Environmental) to inform railway embankment stabilization works adjacent to the pond, revealed a breeding population of great crested newts using Pond 4 c.90m south of the Site. The pond was re-surveyed in 2012 by Keystone Environmental as part of a

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 30

monitoring study required under the European Protected Species licence obtained to cover the embankment works.

4.64 Results of Habitat Suitability Index assessments and great crested newt pond surveys completed in 2012 are described below, with full survey data and Pond Location Plan provided in Appendix E.

Pond assessments and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) 4.65 A total of nine ponds were identified using maps of the area within a 500m radius of the Site. Six of these ponds (P1 to P3, P6 to P8) were assessed for their potential to support great crested newts and HSI analysis was calculated to indicate their suitability as breeding ponds. Ponds P5 and P9 were not subject to HSI analysis as they were found to have dried out and were not considered to have been likely to hold water for quite some time. HSI information for pond P4 was provided by Keystone Environmental.

4.66 The HSI assessment indicated that Ponds 1, 3 and 4 were suitable for breeding GCN. The ‘excellent’ rating indicates that roughly 9 out of 10 ponds of this quality / type would be expected to support GCN in that part of the country. Pond 2 was scored as being of ‘below average’ suitability (probably due to its small size and presence of fish), whilst ponds 6, 7 and 8 were scored as being of ‘poor’ suitability for GCN due to the presence of large fish / waterfowl, large size and lack of macrophyte cover. However, whilst some ponds may be considered to offer poor breeding opportunities for GCN, GCN may still use such water bodies at certain times.

Great Crested Newt Surveys 4.67 Great crested newts were found to be present within ponds P3 and P4, with breeding also confirmed through the presence of eggs. These ponds occur c.120m and 90m south of the Site, with a peak adult count of eight and 28 newts were recorded in these ponds, respectively.

4.68 No great crested newts or eggs attributed to this species were identified within ponds P1 or P2. Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris was recorded in all the ponds surveyed, and confirmed breeding within P2, P3 and P4. Common frog Rana temporaria was also recorded within ponds P1, P2 and P3.

4.69 Due to the proximity of these ponds to each other and the presence of the railway corridor which provides habitat connectivity between the two ponds it is considered likely that great crested newts found within the two ponds form part of the same meta-population. Whilst both ponds were not always surveyed on the same night it is considered the number of GCN likely to be sampled between the ponds on anyone night would be between 11 and 100 individuals. Under current guidelines counts of this magnitude are taken to indicate a ‘medium’ population size is present, although the actual number of individuals likely to be present is extremely hard to estimate.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 31

Invertebrates 4.70 No records for notable invertebrates have been returned for the Site or immediately adjacent habitats though two records of dingy skipper Erynnis tages and grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae , both UKBAP and Vulnerable (IUCN) species were given for the railway and associated habitats c.90m south-east of the Site from 1986. Almost all records of notable butterfly, moth and dragonfly species are given for the Picket and/or Clanger Woods. Scarce chaser Libellula fulva has also been recorded within ponds c.800m south-east of the Site. Two records of white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes are given for the Biss Brook c. from 1990 and 1995 1.8km south-east of the Site.

4.71 The hedgerow and ground flora on the Site are typical of the wider area and not thought to be of significant importance to the species listed above or to widespread species likely to occur on-site. Although larval food plants of the dingy and grizzled skipper are present, the Site does not comprise other requirements typically associated with these species.

Evaluation of Ecological Features

4.72 With reference to the evaluation criteria set out in Section 3.0, a range of factors are considered when evaluating the ecological features of a site. Table 4 provides a summary of the features against a checklist of potentially relevant factors as set out in the IEEM evaluation guidelines.

Table 7. Evaluation Checklist.

Valuation factors Status Notes Designated Sites and Present within Salisbury Plain SPA/SAC and River Avon SAC occur Features 10km within 10km. Bath and Bradford-on Avon Bats SAC • Internationally occurs within 19km, and Site occurs within a ‘Core important sites Area’ associated with breeding locations of Annex II bats species known to use the SAC. • Nationally important Present within Three SSSIs occur within 3km. None occur within, or sites 3km immediately adjacent to, the Site. • Sites of lower level Present within No locally important sites cover the development Site. importance 2km Several occur within the surrounding area. • TPOs Not assessed -

• Hedgerows Not assessed Not assessed, however most of the hedgerows are Regulations unlikely to qualify as Important under the ecology criteria of the Regulations. However H2 and H4 are considered to be species-rich. Biodiversity value • Habitat Absent - designations • S41/BAP habitats Present The S41 list for hedgerows is relevant for this site. The remnants of a former orchard are present. Traditional orchards are a UK and Wiltshire BAP / S41 habitat. • Ancient woodland Absent -

• Protected species Present Badger, breeding birds and bats have been confirmed on-site.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 32

Valuation factors Status Notes • Rare species Present Lesser and greater horseshoe bats have been recorded on-site. The Site is within a Core Area for Bechstein’s bat, although the use of the Site by this species is unconfirmed.

• Species records Present within Protected/notable species records have been provided proximity from within 1km of the Site. Several bat species have previously been recorded on-site (although no roosts identified) during survey work undertaken in association with the Westbury Bypass proposal in 2006.

• S41/BAP species Present Bats and notable bird species have been recorded on- Site. Large Absent - populations/important assemblages of species Potential value Absent -

Secondary or supporting Absent Annex II bat species associated with the Bath and value Bradford-on-Avon SAC have been recorded at the Site, and the Site lies within the 1.5km consultation zone around a Bechstein’s Core Roost at Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI.

Legal issues Present Protected species issues identified in as above and further discussed in Section 5.0.

Evaluation: Habitats Grassland 4.73 The Site is dominated by semi-improved grassland which is currently grazed by horses. Grassland at the Site is not considered to be of significant botanical interest. Whilst some areas were observed to have slightly higher biological diversity they are considered to fall short of the criteria for features of significant ecological value. Similar grassland habitats occur within the surrounding area. Grassland within the Site is considered to be of ecological value at the Site level.

Hedgerows 4.74 The hedgerows at the Site are not likely to be considered as Important under the 1997 Hedgerows Regulations, with the exception of H2 and H4 which are species rich and may qualify. Whilst some of the hedgerows at the Site are defunct, gappy and rather species poor, they have been shown to provide habitat and movement corridors for local wildlife including notable birds and rare bat species. Hedgerows are listed as a priority habitat in S41 / UK and Wiltshire BAPs. The hedgerow resource at the Site is considered to be of ecological value at Local level.

Orchard Habitat 4.75 The small orchard area within the central region of the Site comprises six semi- mature fruit trees, some of which are showing early signs of decay (e.g. small rot hols, hollow sections). Traditional orchards are a S41 / UK and Wiltshire BAP priority habitat. A range of local wildlife is likely to be associated with the Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 33

orchard area including bird, bat and invertebrate species. The orchard habitat present is considered to be of value at the Local level .

Other Habitat Features 4.76 Scattered trees and the small garden pond within the garden area associated with the farmhouse offer opportunities for local wildlife and are considered to be value at the Site level.

Evaluation: Species Bats 4.77 No bat roosts have been identified at the Site, however a range of bat species have been recorded foraging and commuting across the Site. The value of the Site for foraging and commuting bats was assessed using evaluation criteria set out by Wray et al 2010 21 , with assessment results listed below.

Table 8. Evaluation of Bat Foraging and Commuting Habitat, following Wray et al, 2010. Species Recorded at Roosts / Geographic Site Number of Type and Complexity Max. Potential Level of & Rarity Within Bats of Linear Features Score Nearby Roosts Importance Range Well established and connected hedgerows Common Species (2) Small Moderate set within a landscape (Common & soprano number of number / Not of mixed agriculture, 20 Local pipistrelle, brown long- bats (10) known (4) small woodland bocks eared) and small towns / villages (4) Well established and connected hedgerows Rarer Species (5) Small Moderate set within a landscape (Noctule, serotine, number of number / Not of mixed agriculture, 23 County lesser horseshoe & bats (10) known (4) small woodland bocks Myotis sp.) and small towns / villages (4) Moderate number / Not Well established and known / Within Rarest Species (20) connected hedgerows close proximity (Greater horseshoe & set within a landscape Individual to Picket and potentially Bechstein’s of mixed agriculture, 34 Regional bats (5) Clanger Woods – unidentified Myotis small woodland bocks SSSI identified sp. recorded) and small towns / as a Core Roost villages (4) site for Bechstein’s (5)

21 Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E., Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010) Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment, IEEM In Practice (No. 70 December 2010). Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 34

Badgers 4.78 Badgers are active across the site and an outlying badger sett is present on the northern boundary. The Site is considered to be of value at the Site level for badger.

Breeding Birds 4.79 Based on the breeding bird survey information gathered during 2014, and using criteria produced by Fuller 22 , the breeding bird assemblage is considered to be of value at the Local level .

Other Local Wildlife 4.80 Habitats at the Site offer opportunities to a wide range of local wildlife, and the general biodiversity interest across the Site is considered to be of value at the Site level.

22 Fuller, R.J., (1980), A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation . Biological Conservation 17: 229-239 Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 35

5.0 DISCUSSION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 Potential impacts to designated sites and the habitats and species on-site have been assessed based on development proposals within the Concept Masterplan and Landscape Strategy (Turley TAYA2036/3207 Rev B and 4302). The impacts, along with measures for avoidance, mitigation and compensation where required are discussed within this chapter. Opportunities for ecological enhancement are also identified.

5.2 The development proposals comprise an outline application for up to 145 dwellings with public open space, engineering works and associated infrastructure. Housing is planned to be built within the southern and part of the northern field with access off The Ham. Development of the northern field is partly constrained by the presence of underground archaeological artefacts. As such, much of the area will be managed as informal POS with drainage features in the north-east and north-west corners of the Site which are unconstrained. New wildlife habitat will be integrated into these areas.

5.3 Details of proposed ecological impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement are presented within a separate Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (CSa/1961/03) which should be read in conjunction with this assessment. Assessment of likely significant impacts has been made taking account of measures outlined within the Strategy.

Potential Impacts, Avoidance and Mitigation Measures

Designated Sites Salisbury Plain SPA/SAC and the River Avon SAC 5.4 Two statutory sites of international importance occur within 10km of the Site: Salisbury Plain SPA/SAC and the River Avon SAC. Due to the sensitive nature of the Salisbury Plain SAC for stone curlew populations, all new residential developments within 15km of the SAC are required to pay a proportionate financial contribution towards the Wessex Stone Curlew Project in line with the Wessex Area Strategy. Although the Site occurs c.8.5km from the River Avon SAC and direct impacts not anticipated, new development within the catchment area needs to demonstrate no adverse impact as a result of additional sewage discharges, or provide appropriate mitigation in line with local planning policy as appropriate.

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC 5.5 In line with Wiltshire Bat SACs Planning Guidance, the potential for impacts to the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC has been considered. The SAC is designated for the populations of Bechstein’s, lesser and greater horseshoe bats which hibernate within the network of disused stone mines. Although the Glenmore Farm Site occurs c.19km from the SAC, it lies within the 1.5km Core

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 36

Area around a SAC bat species (Bechstein’s) Core Roost Site (Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI c.1.1km to the north-east).

5.6 Development proposals within ‘Core Areas’ need to closely consider impacts to Core Roost sites and ‘Sensitive Features’ used by SAC species, in line with The Wiltshire Bat SAC: Planning Guidance. With regards to the Glenmore Farm Site, potential impacts to satellite roosting sites, loss of fragmentation of foraging areas and commuting routes potentially used by SAC species are discussed below.

5.7 Bat survey work completed at the Site during 2014 has revealed low levels of activity by Annex II species for which the SAC is designated, comprising greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe. Low levels of Myotis sp. bat activity have also been recorded, and it is possible that some of this activity could be attributed to Bechstein’s bats (due to the difficulty in separating the calls of this genus, the presence of Bechstein’s bats has not been confirmed). The potential for disturbance of these species has been closely considered and appropriate impact avoidance and mitigation measures will be delivered as part of the proposed development (further details of impact avoidance / mitigation provided within the ‘Bats’ section of this report). Subject to the implementation of the measures identified it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will result in significant effects on the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC bat populations.

Picket & Clanger Woods SSSI and Bratton Downs SSSI 5.8 Two SSSIs designated for their ecological interest occur within 3km radius of the Site. No direct impacts to these sites are anticipated. Proposed residential development could potentially result in a degree of increased visitor pressure to these sites (although access is limited), however it is not considered likely that this would result in significant impacts to their designating features.

5.9 There are seven non-statutory sites (Local Wildlife Sites), within 2km of the Site, the closest of which, Westbury Lakes occurs c.400m to the south. It is not anticipated that there will be any direct impacts from the proposed development and given the proximity of Westbury, the increase in the local population is unlikely to significantly increase the visitor pressure to the sites.

Habitats Grassland 5.10 Grassland at the Site has been valued at the Site level, with no significant botanical interest being identified. A more diverse flora was noted during 2014 in areas where grazing pressure had been reduced however these areas are not of significant ecological value. The loss of grassland habitat at the Site is not considered likely to be significant, although it is acknowledged that the grassland does provide foraging opportunities for local wildlife such as bird, mammal and invertebrate species.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 37

5.11 A large proportion of existing grassland will be retained within the northern field as informal POS. The existing sward will be retained and over-sown with a native wildflower seed mix to further improve floristic diversity. The sward will be allowed to grow up around mown ‘desire-line’ footpaths within the POS Cutting of the grassland during spring and early summer will be suspended to allow plants to flower and seed. More intensively managed areas of formal POS will be provided within the main development area. Amenity grassland can provide suitable foraging opportunities for birds such as starling, green woodpecker and mammals like badger and hedgehog.

5.12 Two SUDS features (likely to contain attenuation basins) are proposed in the northern half of the Site. Although full specifications for these areas are not yet decided and will be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, they will double up as undisturbed wildlife areas. Species-rich wildflower grassland will be planted to include species tolerant of periodically wet conditions.

Hedgerows 5.13 Hedgerows at the Site are considered to provide an ecological resource of importance at the Local level, used by a variety of local wildlife for nesting, foraging and dispersal. Hedgerows are listed as a priority habitat in Wiltshire BAP 2008 as well as the UK BAP/S41 List. Under current development proposals the majority of hedgerow cover will be retained and protected. Ornamental hedgerows in proximity to the existing house and access will be lost. Partial fragmentation of the central hedgerow (H4) will occur to allow construction of a new access road although this will be directed through an existing gateway in the hedge, reducing vegetation losses. By way of mitigation, replacement hedgerow / tree planting will be provided along the eastern Site boundary to strengthen this feature as well as around the proposed north-west attenuation area and within other gaps in hedgerows elsewhere across the Site. A minimum 5m buffer will be maintained between existing hedgerows and new buildings or roads to protect the hedgerow vegetation and reduce disturbance to wildlife. Sympathetic management of hedgerows would be beneficial. Full details of hedgerow retention, enhancement and replacement are provided within the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy. Overall no significant effect on the hedgerow resource at the Site is anticipated.

Orchard 5.14 The small orchard present within F3 is considered to be of value at the Local level. Traditional Orchards are listed as a priority habitat in Wiltshire BAP 2008 as well as the UK BAP/S41 List. Current development proposals will retain three of the orchard trees in-situ, although associated meadow habitat will be fragmented / lost. By way of mitigation new orchard creation will be included within the scheme. The viability of translocating existing trees to be lost, will be considered at the detailed planning stage, with the aim of achieving no net loss of orchard habitat. Loss of the existing orchard habitat will result in a minor negative impact, which may be offset over time as new orchard habitat develops. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 38

Other Habitat Features 5.15 Other habitat features of value at the Site level comprise scattered trees/shrubs and a small garden pond associated with the farmhouse. New tree planting and pond creation is proposed as part of the landscape strategy for the new development and overall no significant effects are anticipated.

Bats 5.16 All species of bats and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation makes it illegal to kill, injure, capture or disturb bats, or to obstruct access to, damage or destroy bat roosts. All UK species of bat are also included in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP)/S41 list, and the Bats Species Action Plan (SAP) in Wiltshire covers all 15 species found in the area.

Roosts – Discussion of Results 5.17 No evidence of bat roosting has been found within the farmhouse or other buildings, during the inspections and nocturnal roost surveys completed between May and August 2014. Whilst low numbers (two droppings in 2006 thought to be attributed to a Myotis sp. bat and two droppings in 2014 confirmed to be from common pipistrelle) were found within stables / hay barn, it is considered unlikely that a roost is present, but rather that these droppings are from bats foraging / flying within these open structures (as evidenced by observations recorded during the 2014 transect survey). Whilst some of the orchard trees and the mature ash tree at the western end of H4 exhibit some features which could potentially be exploited by roosting bats, no signs have been observed to indicate the use of these trees for roosting during the visual inspections, transect or dawn return to roost surveys undertaken.

5.18 The mature ash tree at the western end of H4, and some trees along the southern access drive and within the orchard area will be retained under current development proposals, however the remaining orchard trees and trees within the garden areas associated with the farm house will be lost. All buildings currently present at the Site will be demolished. Whilst no current evidence of bat roosting has been identified, some features to be removed could be exploited by roosting bats in the future.

Roosts – Potential Impacts 5.19 Retention of semi-mature / mature trees which could provide suitable roosting opportunities is recommended where possible. Precautionary working measures to avoid potential impacts to roosting bats will be set out within a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), with update survey work being undertaken prior to removal of features offering bat roost potential and mitigation / licencing being provide as required. Roosting opportunities for bats will be enhanced with the provision of a range of bat boxes / roost units on retained trees / incorporated into new buildings. Subject to implementation of

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 39

these measures a net gain in the availability of potential roost sites at the Site is anticipated.

Foraging and Commuting Habitat – Discussion of Results 5.20 Transect surveys revealed generally low bat activity across the Site. A minimum of nine bat species were recorded during the manual surveys and/or static monitoring. Activity was dominated by common pipistrelle bats, with the greatest level of common pipistrelle activity being recorded within the orchard (average of 1.03 passes/minute) and along the western boundary of the northern part of the Site (average of 0.79 to 0.89 passes/minute). Other widespread species recorded at the Site include noctule, serotine, brown long- eared bats and other pipistrelle species. From behaviour witnessed during the July transect surveys it was considered likely that a noctule bat roost occurs somewhere to the north-east of the Site.

5.21 Overall, low activity by Myotis bats was recorded at the Site, with Myotis being recorded along hedgerows (peaks of activity along the northern hedgerow H2 during static monitoring) and foraging within the orchard and haylofts (static and manual monitoring). Myotid bats were not identified to species level, as call parameters overlap for several species and accurate identification of species from this genus is difficult to confirm. The Sites lies within the home range for all five British Myotis sp. and it is noted that there is the potential for the rare Bechstein’s bat to use the Site as it is situated within a ‘Core Area’ identified for this species.

5.22 The Site was confirmed to be used by greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe bats, which were detected during static monitoring, with lesser horseshoe also being detected during the August transect survey. Lesser horseshoe bat activity was recorded along the northern hedgerow (H2) and the central hedgerow (H4). Generally activity recorded for this species was low, although a peak of 27 passes in one night was recorded along the central hedgerow in July. Activity was primarily recorded between 01:00hrs and 03:00hrs, indicating that low numbers of lesser horseshoe bats are using hedgerows at the Site as part of their foraging / commuting range. Small lesser horseshoe roosts are known to occur locally.

5.23 Greater horseshoe was recorded on one occasion (22 June) along the northern hedgerow (H2) only. A possible greater horseshoe night roost was identified at Hawkeridge Farm (c.160m north-east) in 2013, with other known roosts located within 1km of the Site. The survey data collected indicates that low numbers of this species are using the northern part of the Site for foraging or commuting.

5.24 Following Wray et al, foraging and commuting opportunities at the Site were evaluated as being of local value for common bat species ( Pipistrellus sp.), with up to county level for rarer species (noctule, serotine, lesser horseshoe and most Myotis sp.) and regional level for rare species (greater horseshoe and potentially Bechstein’s). Whilst only low level of activity from the rarer species Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 40

were recorded at the Site, the value of the Site for these species is evaluated at a wider geographic level due to the limited distribution of these species.

Foraging and Commuting Habitat – Potential Impacts 5.25 Under current development the majority of trees and hedgerows will be retained. The scheme includes 5m buffers around all hedgerows, hedgerow and tree planting and provision of wildflower areas (a future source of invertebrate prey for bats). It is envisaged that bats will be able to continue to foraging and commute across the Site, with foraging opportunities within landscaped areas to the north and west of the residential development zone being enhanced. It is considered that opportunities for bats (including rare species such as greater and lesser horseshoe) using this part of the Site will be enhanced.

5.26 Residential development across the Site will result in the loss of open areas of grassland, existing farm buildings and a small orchard area. Whilst open areas of the Site were noted to be used by noctule bats for commuting (and that other species may also exhibit this behaviour in certain locations), the majority of bat activity was observed close to boundary hedgerows and trees. A significant impact to bats is not anticipated from loss of open grassland at the Site as a significant area of undeveloped, enhanced grassland habitat will be retained in the north of the Site and existing grassland is mostly heavily grazed. Loss of orchard / scattered trees and the farm buildings / livestock activity will result the loss of foraging opportunities for bats using this part of the Site (including pipistrelle sp. and Myotis sp. and potentially other species recorded across the Site), although groups of trees have been retained where possible.

5.27 The central hedgerow and vegetation will be bisected by a new access road. The road will bisect the central hedgerow at the point where the field access gateway currently exists and the hedgerow is defunct for several meters (c.18m gap shown on Tree Survey) to the east of the gateway. The road will need to be c.7.8m wide. Whilst a gap is already present, bats are clearly crossing it and the potential for direct injury and lighting disturbance impacts must be considered. Levels of bat activity attributed to species known to be sensitive to light spill (including Myotis sp. and lesser horseshoe) have been recorded using the central hedgerow. Given the presence of other suitable foraging and commuting habitat to be retained in other parts of the Site, the magnitude of this negative impact is likely to be minimal.

5.28 Along the eastern and western margins of the Site an enhanced green boundary is proposed and it is understood that this may comprise a landscape bund / tree / hedgerow planting. Strengthening of this boundary will be positive, providing that lighting disturbance impacts are avoided.

5.29 The scheme design seeks to ensure that potential disturbance impacts to bats using landscape features retained / created within the Site are minimised through the development layout. A minimum 5m wide buffer will be provided

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 41

either side of the central hedgerow and along the other boundaries of the development. Rear gardens of new properties will back onto the habitat buffers with no adopted roads occurring adjacent to the buffers. However, a suitable lighting scheme will need to be agreed to demonstrate that light spill onto semi- natural features will be avoided.

5.30 Habitat buffers will be seeded / planted with a range of native species of local provenance, with structural planting being used to limit light spill in key areas. Any lighting scheme for the Site will be designed with the aim of avoiding / minimizing any light spill onto key habitat features. Development design which seeks to only provide pedestrian / private drive access in proximity to linear habitat features which are likely to be used by bats, thus limiting the need for external lighting, will be followed at the detailed design stage. A lighting strategy, developed in consultation with an experienced bat ecologist should will secured as part of the planning process.

5.31 Subject to the implementation of measures outlined above and detailed within the ‘Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy’, the potential for significant negative impacts to bats, including Annex II species associated with the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC are considered to be low.

Badgers 5.32 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence to kill or injure a badger or disturb a badger whilst it is occupying a sett. In addition the setts themselves are protected from damage, destruction and obstruction of access.

5.33 A single badger outlier sett is present along the northern Site-boundary, with evidence of badger activity also being noted towards the western end of the central hedgerow and on the western side of pasture within the southern part of the Site. Badgers are likely to be using hedgerows and pasture across the Site for foraging and dispersal, with a main sett somewhere to the west or east seeming likely. Habitat at the Site is considered to be of Site level value for badger.

5.34 Hedgerows and associated habitat buffers at the Site will largely be retained, with suitable habitat buffers to these features being provided as part of landscaping proposals. Thus dispersal routes for badgers should mostly be retained.

5.35 It is currently unclear whether drainage and engineering work proposed within F1 would impact the outlying badger sett. If this is the case, the sett would need to be closed under licence from Natural England to avoid an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act. A mitigation strategy would need to be submitted to Natural England to detail the methodology for closure of the outlying sett, once planning permission was granted. It should be noted that Natural England will only typically grant a licence to impact a badger sett between 1 st July and 30 th November so that the badger breeding season is avoided. Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 42

5.36 In the event that the sett can be retained in-situ, precautionary measures would be needed to avoid disturbance to badgers and the sett through the provision of suitable protection measures during site preparation works and construction (e.g. SUDS features). A minimum of a 10m buffer zone will be provided around any sett entrances during works, within which ground works or the movement/storage of large machinery will be prohibited. In the long-term disturbance will be minimised by the provision of buffer zones to hedges and undisturbed wildlife habitat/SUDs in proximity to the sett. These protection measures are described more fully within the Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy.

5.37 Development at the Site will result in the loss of grazed pasture which is likely to reduce the foraging resource available to badgers locally. However, new areas of public open space and informal grassland areas are to be provided within the Site which will replace some of these opportunities, and no significant impacts to the local badger population are anticipated.

Other mammals 5.38 There will be a net loss of open grassland habitat for use by other mammal species such as deer, hedgehog and other small mammal species. Provision of semi-natural habitat and native planting within the northern part of the Site, and integration of green infrastructure principals throughout the development will help to minimise impacts to local wildlife in general. Provision to allow dispersal of small mammal species across the Site, such as through raised garden gates or fence panels, is recommended.

Birds 5.39 All wild birds are protected from killing and injury, and their nests and eggs are protected from damage and destruction, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

5.40 The Site is considered to be of Local value for breeding birds. Several species listed on the Red list of conservation concern were found to use the Site, though not in significant numbers. Bird activity was largely restricted to the hedgerows and trees though flocks of starlings, as well as gulls and thrushes were seen to forage in the open grassland. House martin and swallow nests are established within the eaves of the farmhouse and farm buildings.

5.41 The majority of hedgerows and trees at the Site will be retained, maintaining foraging and nesting opportunities within these features, particularly in the northern part of the Site which will not be subject to public access and therefore will not be disturbed. New landscape / habitat planting will provide positive benefits for hedgerow bird species.

5.42 Development will result in a net loss of grassland habitat, and associated flying invertebrate prey associated with the horses and their dung. For some species,

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 43

which generally adapt well to residential gardens and public open space where new planting has been provided, no significant impacts are anticipated, where species. Semi-natural grassland to be retained / provided in the north of the Site will provide some replacement seed and invertebrate prey, as well as potential nesting opportunities.

5.43 Under the development proposals the farmhouse and associated farm buildings will be lost, resulting in the loss of breeding opportunities currently being exploited by house martins, swallow, house sparrow and pied wagtail. Replacement nesting opportunities for these species will be provided in line with prescriptions set out with the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy. It is also envisaged that the SUDS features in the north of the Site will provide a source of mud in the spring for nesting swallow and house martin.

5.44 Direct impacts to nesting birds will be avoided by removing potential nesting features (including trees / scrub and buildings) outside of the nesting bird season, typically taken as March to August (inclusive), or absence of nesting will be confirmed before such works proceed if this is not possible.

5.45 The creation of species-rich grassland areas and incorporation of native, nectar-rich plants into the landscaping scheme will continue to support flying invertebrate prey and produce a weed-seed resource for granivorous species. Avoidance of the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides within landscaped areas is recommended to retain opportunities for birds.

5.46 Subject to the implementation of measures outlined above and detailed within the ‘Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy’, no significant potential impacts to the value of the Site for nesting birds are anticipated.

Reptiles 5.47 All British reptile species are listed within Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are afforded protection against killing and injury under parts of sub-section 9(1) of the Act. In addition all British reptile species are priority species within the UK BAP.

5.48 A range of widespread and common reptile species are known to occur locally. It is not considered likely to that a reptile population is resident on-site, however suitable opportunities for reptiles do occur within the local landscape and therefore low potential for direct impacts to reptiles have been identified should habitat management change across the Site and reptiles colonise if suitable habitat develops.

5.49 Current grazing or alternative cutting management should be continued at the Site to prevent development of suitable habitat which would be colonised by reptiles. Where limited opportunities for reptiles occur at hedgerow bases etc., these features are to be buffered and protected from development and

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 44

therefore no direct impacts to reptiles are anticipated should they use these features.

5.50 Where small areas of suitable habitat (e.g. where hedgerow bases etc.) have to be removed, any dense vegetation (grass / scrub) will be removed by hand during the period that reptiles are active (April to September depending on local weather conditions) to encourage any reptiles that could potentially exploit marginal areas of the Site to move off.

5.51 Should current management of the grassland on-site change to permit the development of rough grassland or scrub prior to the commencement of works then potential opportunities for reptiles to disperse into suitable areas of habitat at the Site will increase. In this situation a presence / absence survey would be required to identify any potential reptile constraint to removal of habitat and a suitable mitigation approach be adopted as appropriate.

5.52 Subject to the implementation of these measures no negative impacts to reptiles are anticipated as a result of the proposed development.

Amphibians 5.53 Great crested newts and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2010, which makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a great crested newt or to damage, destroy or obstruct access to a place of shelter or to disturb a great crested newt whilst it is occupying such a place.

5.54 GCN are known to occur within ponds P3 and P4 c.90m and c.120m south of the Site. Whilst records of GCN were provided from P1 (West Wilts Trading Estate, c.200m north) by WBRC in 2008, surveys undertaken during 2012 did not reveal the presence of this species and GCN were not recorded within the small garden pond within the Site (P2). Smooth newts were found to be present within P1 and P.2

5.55 It is considered that GCN are unlikely to be crossing north/south across the Site between ponds (i.e. P1 and P3/P4), or making use of the limited aquatic habitat provided on Site (P2). Ponds to the south of the Site (P3 and P4) where GCN have been confirmed to be present are somewhat isolated from the Site by Hawkeridge Road and existing residential housing. Whilst it may be possible for GCN to disperse into terrestrial habitat at the Site this is considered unlikely given the dispersal corridor provided along the railway embankments which also provide suitable terrestrial habitat for newts and other amphibians.

5.56 Habitat value within the Site for other more widespread amphibian species (e.g. smooth newt) is considered to be fairly limited given the small size of the garden pond and heavily grazed pasture across much of the Site. Whilst no legal issues have been identified at present within regard to GCN a sympathetic approach

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 45

will be taken to removal of the small garden pond on-site to reduce impacts to other amphibians. New wetland habitat features are proposed as part of the landscape strategy for the Site. Overall no likely significant impacts to the local amphibian population are anticipated.

Invertebrates 5.57 Significant impacts to a notable assemblage of invertebrates are not considered likely to result from the proposed development, however there will be a loss of sheltering and foraging resources in the form of grassland, horse dung and small areas of hedgerow.

5.58 Hedgerows and trees are to be retained with buffers. New landscape planting and over-sowing the retained grassland sward would provide new habitat resources for invertebrate species including bee and butterfly species. Incorporation of species of known wildlife benefit within landscape planting for public/recreational areas such as those given within the Natural England leaflet ‘Plants for wildlife-friendly gardens’ 23 would also be beneficial and would help provide ‘stepping-stones’ across the development for invertebrates.

General Opportunities for Ecological Enhancement

5.59 In addition to specific measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from development, a range of ecological enhancement measures are proposed as part of the proposed development; these are summarised below. Full details of the measures are provided within the separate Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy which should be read in conjunction with this report. • Retained hedgerows to be buffered and enhanced through new planting; • Enhanced grassland habitat to be managed within the northern part of the Site, retaining opportunities for a range of local wildlife; • Native shrub and tree planting across the Site, using specimens of local provenance; • Creation of new wetland habitat features as part of the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) scheme and landscape strategy; • Plantation of a new community orchard area; • Provision of new roosting opportunities for bats and nesting opportunities for birds; • Inclusion of log / rubble piles within areas of new habitat to offer refuge and hibernation opportunities to local wildlife. • Ecologically sensitive management of retained and newly created areas of semi-natural habitat at the Site through implementation of a suitable Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP).

23 Plants for wildlife-friendly gardens available online at http://naturalengland.communsis.com/naturalenglandshop/ docs/NE29.pdf Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 46

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed development Site is within 10km of the Salisbury Plain SPA/SAC and the River Avon SAC. Developer contributions will be required to mitigate against impacts to international sites.

6.2 Picket and Clanger Wood SSSI occurs c.1.1km from the Site. Whilst this site is designated for the Ancient Woodland habitat present, it has also been identified as a Core Roost site for Bechstein’s bat with the maternity colony present being associated with hibernation roosts within the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats SAC located c.19km north of the Site. Potential impacts to Bechstein’s and other Annex II bat species (greater and lesser horseshoe) for which the SAC is designated have been closely considered. Due to the low level of activity of these species, and proposals for retention and enhancement of key features known to be used by these bats, it is not considered likely that the proposed development will result in significant effects on the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon SAC populations.

6.3 No significant impacts to SSSIs and LWS identified within a 2km radius of the Site are anticipated as a result the proposed development, although potential low level increases in visitor pressure to these sites has been highlighted.

6.4 The majority of the Site comprises semi-improved grassland or buildings, which offer opportunities for local wildlife at the Site Level. Hedgerows and trees (including a small orchard area) are considered to be of value at the Local level. Where possible these features will be retained as part of the proposed development, with mitigation / compensation for the loss / fragmentation of such features being provided as appropriate.

6.5 Detailed bat survey work has been completed to establish the presence / absence of any roosts within buildings and trees to be lost as a result of the proposed development, and to assess the value of habitats at the Site for foraging and commuting bats. No bat roosts have been identified at the Site, however a range of bat species have been found using the hedgerow network for foraging and commuting. Bat activity has been found to be dominated by common pipistrelle bats, with low level activity from rarer species including greater and lesser horseshoe as well as Myotis sp. (which could potentially include Bechstein’s bat which are known to roost at Picket and Clanger Woods SSSI c.1.1km to the north-east). Due to the rarity and limited distribution of some of the bat species recorded at the Site, key habitat features are considered to of up to Regional Level importance, however it should be noted that bat activity from rare Annex II species recorded at the Site has been low. Habitats at the Site are considered to be of importance for commoner bat species at the Local Level. The majority of key features used by bats across

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 47

the Site will be retained and protected. Measures to avoid, mitigate and/or compensate for potential disturbance impacts to bats are provided as part of the development proposals. Subject to the implementation of these proposals, no significant impacts to local bat populations are considered likely.

6.6 An outlier badger sett has been identified under H2 along the northern boundary of F1. Should detailed proposals necessitate impacts to the sett, a mitigation strategy will need to be prepared as part of a licence application to Natural England to close the sett. In the event that the sett can be retained, suitable sett protection measures have been prescribed. Precautionary measures to avoid potential impacts to badgers (including update surveys prior to commencement) as well as new habitat creation measures will be implemented alongside the proposed development.

6.7 A breeding bird assemblage of up to Local value was recorded at the Site. Specific mitigation measures for house martin, house sparrow, pied wagtail and swallow have been described, along with general opportunities for enhancement. Dense vegetation and buildings should not be removed or impacted between the months March to August inclusive when birds may be nesting.

6.8 The presence of protected species such as reptiles or great created newts is considered unlikely. However, In order to avoid potential impacts to other local wildlife a range of precautionary working measures have been identified.

6.9 An Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy has been produced alongside development and landscape proposals for the Site. Subject to the implementation of the measures proposed within the Strategy it is not considered that the proposed development will result in significant negative ecological impacts. Details of ecological enhancement measures will be agreed with the LPA Ecologist at the reserved matters stage, and a commitment to achieving net gains for biodiversity has been made.

Land at Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Ecological Impact Assessment Report CSa/1961/02 Page 48

Appendix A

MAGIC Database Site Check Report and Plan

1961_Glenmore Farm, Westbury

Legend

Ramsar Sites (England)

Special Areas of Conservation (England) Special Protection Areas (England)

Projection = OSGB 36 xmin = 364900 ymin = 138000 xmax = 409700 ymax = 167000 Map produced by MAGIC on 13 June, 2014. Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually updated by the (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2014. Ordnance Survey 100022861. originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage. Page 1 of 1

Site Check Report Report generated on Fri Jun 13 2014 You selected the location: Centroid Grid Ref: ST863528 The following features have been found in your search area:

Special Areas of Conservation (England)

Name RIVER AVON Reference UK0013016 Hectares 467.58 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp? eucode=UK0013016

Name SALISBURY PLAIN Reference UK0012683 Hectares 21465.94 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp? eucode=UK0012683

Special Protection Areas (England)

Name SALISBURY PLAIN Reference UK9011102 Hectares 19715.99

Ramsar Sites (England) No Features found

http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx 13/06/2014 1961_Glenmore Farm, Westbury

Legend

Local Nature Reserves (England) National Nature Reserves (England) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England)

Projection = OSGB 36 xmin = 379700 ymin = 148400 xmax = 393700 ymax = 157500 Map produced by MAGIC on 13 June, 2014. Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually updated by the (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2014. Ordnance Survey 100022861. originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage. Page 1 of 1

Site Check Report Report generated on Fri Jun 13 2014 You selected the location: Centroid Grid Ref: ST863528 The following features have been found in your search area:

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England)

Name BRATTON DOWNS Reference 1000826 Natural England Contact FERGUS MITCHELL Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 400.08 Citation 1005598 Hyperlink http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi_details.cfm? sssi_id=1005598

Name WESTBURY IRONSTONE QUARRY Reference 1000451 Natural England Contact NICK NETTLEINGHAM Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 0.62 Citation 1003057 Hyperlink http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi_details.cfm? sssi_id=1003057

Name PICKET AND CLANGER WOOD Reference 1000946 Natural England Contact KATIE LLOYD Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 66.9 Citation 1001598 Hyperlink http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi_details.cfm? sssi_id=1001598

Local Nature Reserves (England) No Features found

National Nature Reserves (England) No Features found

http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx 13/06/2014

Appendix B

Habitats Plan (CSa/1961/100)

H2

H3

F1

SI

H1 F4 SI H4 H5 L F3 BG SI F7 SI B3 B1 SI SISI F2 F9 B2 L B4 F6 SI

L F8 H6 SI F5

SI

Survey area SI Semi-improved grassland Isolated tree Badger hole (+ tunnel direction) Fence BG Bare ground Scattered scrub L Badger latrine

Wall Amenity grassland Pond Mammal path

Seasonally-wet ditch Hard-standing Gate Fn Field number

Hedgerow Building Mammal hole Hn Hedgerow number (+ tunnel direction)

      Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Date May 2012   CSa/1961/100         Habitats Plan Scale Not to scale  B-Sept 2014         Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd  KK  environmental planning   CC

Appendix C

Bat Survey Data and Plans



 H2

H2  

H3  F1

 SI 

H3 H1 F4 F1 SI * H4  H5 L F3 BG SI SI F7  SI  B3 B1 * SI SI  F2 F9 B2 L  H1 B4 F4 F6 SI SI L H4 H5  F8  H6   SI L F3 BG F5 SI  INSET F7 SI B3 B1  SI  SI SI F2 F9 B2 L B4 F6 SI  L

Legend F8 H6 SI Location of static bat detector at activity survey transect route (* Static detector left out for one night only on 14/08/2014) F5

 ansect stop-point Surveyor position/route during emergence/return-to-roost surveys (see inset)

Suite 1      Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Date August 2014   1961/102         Bat Survey Plan Scale Not to scale  A         Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd  KK  CC environmentalSI planning  

Bat Survey / Monitoring Weather Data for 2014

Table 1: Summary weather data for bat emergence / return-to-roost surveys at Glenmore Farm, 2014. Precipitation Wind Sunset/sunrise Temp Survey date Time (hours) and cloud (Beaufort time (BST) (oC) cover (oktas) Scale) Sta rt 20:20 10.5 Dry, cc=0 3 12/05/14 20:48 End 22:48 7.7 Dry, cc=2 1

Start 21:12 16 Dry, cc=7 2 10/06/2014 21:27 End 00:27 `5 Dry, cc=6 0 Start 03.25 17 Dry, cc=7 0 25/06/2014 04:45 End 04.45 14 Dry, cc=4 3 Start 04:18 11 Dry, cc=0 2 15/08/2014 05:55 End 05:55 9.5 Dry, cc=1 1

Table 2: Summary weather data for bat activity transect surveys at Glenmore Farm, 2014. Precipitation Wind Sunset/sunrise Temp Survey date Time (hours) and cloud (Beaufort time (BST) (oC) cover (oktas) Scale) Start 20:20 10.5 Dry, cc=1 3 12/05/14 20:48 22:27 (survey End 7.7 Dry, cc=2 1 stopped short) Start 21:12 19 Dry, cc=7 2 16/06/2014 21:27 End 00:27 13 Dry, cc=3 1 Start 21:08 19 Dry, cc=8 3 14/07/2014 21:20 End 00:20 18 Dry, cc=8 4 Start 03:09 17 Dry, cc=8 4 15/07/2014 05:10 End 05:10 16 Dry, cc=5 2 Start 20:18 15 Light rain, cc=7 2 14/08/2014 20:33 End 23:33 14 Dry, cc=5 1

Table 3 : Summary weather conditions for static bat monitoring at Glenmore Farm, 2014 Overnight Survey Locations Dates temperature (°C) Rain/cloud Wind (mph) month Sampled sampled Min Max Clear, rain at 13/05/14 6 10 4-6 Central 03:00 May Hedgerow & 14/05/14 6 12 Clear 1-7 Orchard 15/05/14 8 14 Clear 1-3 09/06/14 12 15 Overcast 4-7 Central Clear with mist 11/06/14 11 14 2-6 June Hedgerow & from 00:00 Orchard Clear with some 12/06/14 11 16 1-6 period of cloud 21/06/14 12 15 Clear 4-5 Northern 1-4 June* 22/06/14 13 17 Mostly cloudy Hedgerow Clear with some 23/06/14 10 14 8-9 period of cloud Northern & 10/07/14 14 16 Mostly cloudy 4-6 Central 4-7 July 11/07/14 13 15 Clear Hedgerow & Clear with cloud 13/07/14 10 15 3-5 Orchard at 22:00 Mostly overcast, Northern & 15/08/14 10 15 1-6 Central some fog August Hedgerow & 16/08/14 13 14 Overcast 8-9 Orchard 17/08/14 10 12 Mostly overcast 7

* During the first June period, SM2 detectors were only deployed within the orchard and on the central hedgerow (H4). The second June period relates to a third detector only, placed mid-way along the northern hedgerow (H2)

Bat Activity Transect Surveys: Summarised Data

Table 4 . Summary of Total Bat Passes Recorded During Transect Surveys, 2014. Lesser ALL Survey 45Pip 55Pip NathPip Myotis Noctule Nyctalus Serotine Month HS BATS May 45 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 48

June 107 5 3 4 2 2 4 0 127 July 92 0 1 2 33 0 1 0 129 Dusk July 56 2 0 23 38 0 0 0 119 dawn August 39 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 47

Table 5. Summary of Total Bat Passes and Bat Passes / Minute Recorded at Transect Stop Points; Data Pooled from May, June, July and August Transect Survey Data. Bat Species BLE BLE 45Pip 55Pip Myotis Noctule NathPip BLE/min BLE/min Serotine Nyctalus 45Pip/min 55Pip/min ALLBATS Myotis/min TransectPoint Noctule/min NathPip/min Survey Minutes Serotine/min Nyctalus/min ALLBATS/MIN 1A 37 2 0.05 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.05 1B 40 24 0.60 1 0.03 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 2 0.05 0 0 0 0 28 0.70 1C 40 8 0.20 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 9 0.23 1D 37 1 0.03 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.05 0 0 0 0 3 0.08 1E 37 2 0.05 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.05 1F 32 12 0.38 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 14 0.44 1G 32 9 0.28 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 10 0.31 1H 37 3 0.08 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 4 0.11 1I 36 25 0.69 0 0.00 0 0 2 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0.75 2A 39 33 0.85 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.05 0 0 0 0 35 0.90 2B 40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 2C 43 15 0.35 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.35 2D 43 13 0.30 0 0.00 1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0.33 2E 40 16 0.40 1 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0.43 2F 37 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 2G 37 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 2H 37 1 0.03 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.03 2I 37 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.03 0 0 6 0.16 0 0 0 0 7 0.19

Figure 1. Summary of Bat Passes / Minute Recorded at Transect Stop Points; Data Pooled from May, June, July and August Transect Survey Data.

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

Batpasses/minute 0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H 1I 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I Transect Point

45Pip/min 55Pip/min NathPip/min Myotis/min BLE Noctule/min Nyctalus/min Serotine/min

Table 6. Summary of Static SM2 Data recorded over a 3 night period each month; May, June, July and August 2014. Bat Species Month Location Data Type PIPI PIPY PINA MYsp PLAUR EPSE NYNO NYsp RHHI RHFE All Bats TP 277.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 297.00 Central P/hr 11.02 0.36 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 11.82 May TP 359.00 17.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 385.00 Orchard P/hr 14.29 0.68 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.32 TP 187.00 11.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 3.00 14.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 232.00 Central P/hr 8.34 0.49 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.13 0.62 0.00 0.58 0.00 10.35 TP 433.00 77.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 15.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 538.00 June Orchard P/hr 19.31 3.43 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.09 0.67 0.13 0.00 0.00 24.00 TP 155.00 10.00 3.00 30.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 217.00 North P/hr 6.91 0.45 0.13 1.34 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.04 0.18 9.68 TP 56.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 5.00 44.00 0.00 163.00 Central P/hr 2.41 0.09 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.04 1.98 0.22 1.90 0.00 7.02 TP 368.00 19.00 1.00 31.00 1.00 1.00 84.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 511.00 July Orchard P/hr 15.86 0.82 0.04 1.34 0.04 0.04 3.62 0.26 0.00 0.00 22.02 TP 87.00 7.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 165.00 North P/hr 3.75 0.30 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.09 0.09 0.00 7.11 TP 115.00 15.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 142.00 Central P/hr 4.05 0.53 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 5.00 TP 474.00 27.00 0.00 97.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 606.00 August Orchard P/hr 16.70 0.95 0.00 3.42 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 21.35 TP 9.00 1.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24.00 North P/hr 0.32 0.04 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.85 Abbreviations: TP = Total Number of Bat Passes; P/hr = Bat Passes per Hour; PIPI = Common pipistrelle, PIPY = Sorpano pipistrelle; PINA = Nathusius pipistrelle; MYsp = Myotis sp.; PLAUR = Brown Long-Eared; EPSE = Serotine; NYNO = Noctule; NYsp = Nyctalus sp.; RHHI = Lesser Horseshoe; RHFE = Greater Horseshoe.

Figure 2. Summary of Static SM2 Data recorded over a 3 night period each month; May, June, July and August 2014.

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

Bat Passes / Hour / Passes Bat 10.00

5.00

0.00 P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr P/hr Central Orchard Central Orchard North Central North Orchard Central North Orchard May June July August

PIPI PIPY PINA MYsp PLAUR EPSE NYNO NYsp RHHI RHFE Sampling Month and Location / Species

Figure3. Number and proportion of bat passes recorded during static monitoring recorded over a 3 night period each month; May, June, July and August 2014.

5.00 25.00 63.00 15.00 6.00 213.00

11.00 227.00

195.00

2520.00

PIPI PIPY PINA MYsp PLAUR EPSE NYNO NYsp RHHI RHFE

Appendix D

Breeding Bird Survey Results

Conservation Breeding Common name Latin name Notes/Comments Status* Status 08/04/14 08/04/14 13/05/2014 13/05/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014 25/06/2004 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Amber - - F - - Male flew over site on one occasion Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Sch 1 - F - - - Flew over site during first survey only Herring gull Larus argentatus Red, WBAP (breed adjacent Frequent flyover, seen to forage in F1 on one occasion. Probably F √ - - to site) breed on adjacent industrial estate buildings Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus Amber (breed adjacent Predominantly flyover species only. Recorded foraging in F1 on to site) F √ F F second survey with herring gull. Nest on industrial buildings to west of site Stock dove Columba oenas Amber Possible F - - - Flyover only Wood pigeon Columba palumbus - Probable √ √ √ √ Abundant across the site Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto - Possible Territories held over adjacent housing, occasionally present on- √ √ F - site in boundary trees and hedgerows Cuckoo Cuculus canorus Red, WBAP, S41 Possible - F - - One bird flew south to north over site on 13 May Swift Apus apus Amber, WBAP - Two birds foraging over site on final visit. No record of breeding - - - F onsite Great spotted Dendrocopos major - Probable Pair seen within orchard √ √ - - woodpecker Swallow Hirundo rustica Amber Confirmed Abundant over farm buildings and surrounding pastures. Nest √ √ √ √ within stables. Four nests seen with chicks. Similar number of old/disused/possibly used nests within stables House martin Delichon urbica Amber, WBAP Confirmed Abundant over farm buildings and surrounding pastures and - √ √ √ residential area. Twenty five active nests counted under eaves of farmhouse over four visits. Pied wagtail Motacilla alba Confirmed √ √ - - Nest within stables. Pair regularly seen in stable yard. Wren Troglodytes - Confirmed Abundant across the site. Birds seen delivering food in north-west √ √ √ √ troglodytes corner of site Robin Erithacus rubecula - Confirmed Common across the site. Recently fledged bird recorded in H6 in √ √ √ √ May Dunnock Prunella modularis Amber, S41 Probable √ √ √ - Recorded in small numbers within boundary hedgerows. Song thrush Turdus philomelos Red, S41, WBAP Possible - - √ - Male singing in H2 on one occasion. More commonly heard offsite Blackbird Turdus merula - Probable Abundant across all areas of the site, within hedgerows and √ √ √ √ pasture/long grass Blackcap Slyvia atricapilla - Possible - √ √ √ Regularly heard singing in H2, and on one occasion in H4.

Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita - Possible Recorded singing along H2 only. One bird also recorded in H4 √ - - √ during final visit. Great tit Parus major - Confirmed Common within hedgerows and trees across the site. Nest √ √ √ √ confirmed within tree hole in orchard. Family group recorded in H4 Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus - Probable √ √ √ √ Common within hedgerows and trees at the site Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus - Possible √ - - - Recorded in north-west corner of site during first visit only Magpie Pica pica - Possible Occasionally recorded foraging on grassland, or within hedgerow - √ - √ trees Jackdaw Corvus monedula - Possible - √ F F Mainly flyover, one bird recorded foraging in F1. Rook Corvus frugilegus - - F F F F Flyover only Carrion crow Corvus corone - Possible Common across the site within hedgerow trees, or foraging within √ √ √ √ grassland Starling Sturnus vulgaris Red, S41, WBAP Possible Flocks of up to 18 feeding on grazed pasture in F5. Juveniles √ √ √ √ present. Food taken to likely nests in adjacent housing. House sparrow Passer domesticus Red, S41, WBAP Confirmed Predominantly recorded in boundary hedgerows and offsite √ √ - - gardens. At least one pair nest in roof of farmhouse Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs - Probable √ √ √ √ Pairs recorded. Common across site within hedgerows and trees Linnet Carduelis cannabina Red, S41, WBAP Possible - √ - - Pair recorded in H5 and foraging on ground on one occasion Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis - Probable Very common within trees and hedgerows, and foraging on √ √ √ √ ground within F1 and F5. Flocks fly over regularly Greenfinch Carduelis chloris - Probable Common on- site and in neighbouring hedgerows and trees along √ √ √ √ Hawkeridge Road. Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Red, S41, WBAP Possible - √ - - Male singing in eastern stretch of H4 on one occasion Tota l species : 34 24 27 21 20 *Conservation status refers to Red or Amber listed species (Eaton et al , 2009 Birds of Conservation Concern 3), Schedule 1 species (Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended)), Wiltshire BAP species and Section 41(S41) species of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006). F: Flyover, birds seen flying over the site only e.g. commuting

Appendix E

Great Crested Newt Survey Data and Plans

Survey Area

Pond

Pond within 500m radius of the site Pn boundary

Pond subject to presence/absence Pn surveys for great crested newt P1

P9

P2

P6 P5 P4 P7

P3

P8

      Glenmore Farm, Westbury, Wiltshire Date June 2012   1961/101         Pond Location Plan Scale Not to scale  A         Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd  KK  CC environmental planning  

Table1. HSI Assessment Results; 2012.

HIS Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4 Pond 6 Pond 7 Pond 8

HSI 0.89 0.55 0.82 0.75 0.45 0.31 0.30 Score Suitability Below Excellent Excellent Good Poor Poor Poor for GCN average

Table 2: Summarised great crested newt survey data: 2012. Maximum number of great crested newts recorded during survey visit, either by torching or bottle trapping. Presence of eggs also indicated. Pond Ponds Surveyed by CSa Surveyed by Csa Survey Keystone Keystone Date Survey Date Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4*

24/04/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN 1♂ GCN 19/04/2012 21 ♂, 7 ♀

7♂ GCN, 1 ♀ 30/04/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN 03/05/2012 1♀ GCN 1♂ GCN, 1 ♀ 09/05/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN 09/05/2012 4♂, 8 ♀ +(E) GCN + (E) 1♀ GCN + 16/05/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN (E) 17/05/2012 4♂, 8 ♀ 2♀ GCN + 22/05/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN 29/05/2012 0 GCN (E) 1♀ GCN + 28/05/2012 0 GCN 0 GCN 11/06/2012 0 GCN (E) Maximum Maximum Adult GCN 0 0 8 Adult GCN 28 Count Count Abbreviations: GCN = great crested newt Triturus cristatus ; ♀ = female, ♂ = male; (E) = GCN eggs identified